Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01315/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01315-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

-1- 17cv1315-MMA (BLM)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DAVID GARLAND ATWOOD II,

Plaintiff,

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; and 

U.S. PROBATION, 

Defendants.

Case No.: 17cv1315-MMA (BLM)

ORDER RESPONDING TO 

REFERRAL NOTICE 

[Doc. No. 10] 

REVOKING IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

STATUS ON APPEAL 

On June 27, 2017, Plaintiff David Garland Atwood II (“Plaintiff”) proceeding pro 

se, filed a complaint against the United States of America and the U.S. Probation Office 

(collectively “Defendants”). See Doc. No. 1. On June 30, 2017, the Court dismissed 

Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). See Doc. No. 5. The Court 

construed the matter as arising under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Fed. Narcotics 

Agents, 403 U.S, 388 (1971), and concluded Plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim 

upon which relief could be granted. See id. The Court entered judgment against 

Plaintiff, and Plaintiff appealed the judgment. See Doc. Nos. 6, 7. 

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals now refers this matter for the “limited purpose 

of determining whether in forma pauperis status should continue for this appeal or 

whether the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith.” Doc. No. 10. Rule 24(a)(3) of the 

Case 3:17-cv-01315-MMA-BLM Document 11 Filed 07/19/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
 -2- 17cv1315-MMA (BLM)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that a party granted leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis (“IFP”) in district court may continue that status on appeal unless the 

district court certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith, which in this context 

means that it is frivolous. See Ellis v. United States, 356 U.S. 674, 674-75 (1958). Title 

28 of the United States Code, section 1915(a)(3) similarly provides that an appeal may 

not be taken IFP if the trial court certifies it is not taken in good faith. For purposes of § 

1915, an appeal is frivolous if it lacks any arguable basis in law or fact. See Neitzke v. 

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 

1984). 

After review of the record herein, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s appeal lacks 

any arguable basis in law or fact, and thus is considered as not being taken “in good 

faith” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Accordingly, the Court hereby REVOKES

Plaintiff’s IFP status. See Gardner v. Pogue, 558 F.2d 548, 550 (9th Cir. 1977) (indigent 

appellant is permitted to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal only if appeal would not be 

frivolous). 

The Clerk of Court is directed to notify the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of this 

Order. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(4). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 19, 2017

 _____________________________ 

 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:17-cv-01315-MMA-BLM Document 11 Filed 07/19/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2