Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-06921/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-06921-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JEROME LEMEAL WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

WENDY DUFFY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-06921-BLF 

ORDER REVOKING PLAINTIFF’S IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS

[Re: ECF 25]

On February 25, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a 

Referral Notice, referring the above-captioned case to the undersigned “for the limited purpose of 

determining whether in forma pauperis status should continue for [Plaintiff’s] appeal or whether 

the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith.” See ECF 25. For the reasons discussed below, the 

undersigned concludes that Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status should be REVOKED.

The undersigned granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis in the district 

court based solely on a determination that Plaintiff was unable to afford the court filing fees. See 

ECF 8. The Ninth Circuit’s current referral presents a separate question, whether Plaintiff’s in 

forma pauperis status should be revoked on the basis that the appeal is frivolous. “An appeal may 

not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good 

faith.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). An appeal is taken in good faith for purposes of § 1915 if it 

presents any issue that is not frivolous. See Hooker v. Am. Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 

2002) (“If at least one issue or claim is found to be non-frivolous, leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis on appeal must be granted for the case as a whole.”).

Case 5:18-cv-06921-BLF Document 26 Filed 02/27/19 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Northern District of California

The undersigned dismissed Plaintiff’s first amended complaint without leave to amend on 

the grounds that Plaintiff had neither articulated a cognizable federal claim nor given any 

indication that he could do so if granted further leave to amend. See ECF 20. On this record, it 

does not appear that reasonable minds could differ with respect to those grounds for dismissal. 

Accordingly, the undersigned concludes that Plaintiff’s appeal is frivolous. On that basis 

Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status is REVOKED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 27, 2019

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:18-cv-06921-BLF Document 26 Filed 02/27/19 Page 2 of 2