Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06658/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06658-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

 Identified as Ramerez in the complaint. 1

 The United States Marshal is in the process of attempting service on Katukota. The status of service on 2

this defendant is being monitored by the Court.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM GARCIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDWARD ALMIEDA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-CV-06658-REC-SMS-P

ORDER DISREGARDING PLAINTIFF’S

DECLARATION REGARDING IN FORMA

PAUPERIS STATUS (Doc. 137)

NOTICE AND ORDER FINDING THAT

PLAINTIFF IS NOT ENTITLED TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON

APPEAL FILED MARCH 28, 2006 (Doc. 138)

Plaintiff William Garcia (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 15, 2006, the Court

granted Defendants Snow, Nguyen, Smith, Ramirez, and Bradish’s motions for summary 1

adjudication as to Plaintiff’s claims against them. Judgment was not entered, as this action remains

pending against unserved Defendant Vijaya Katukota. On March 27, 2006, Plaintiff filed a 2

declaration asserting his eligibility to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, and on March 28, 2006,

Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal “from an order of Summary Judgment/Adjudication entered in this

action of the 15 day of March 2006.” 

Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, 

A party who was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in the district-court action

Case 1:03-cv-06658-LJO -SMS Document 139 Filed 04/04/06 Page 1 of 3
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

2

. . . may proceed on appeal in forma pauperis without further authorization, unless:

(A) the district court - before or after the notice of appeal is filed - certifies that the

appeal is not taken in good faith or finds that the party is not otherwise entitled to

proceed in forma pauperis and states in writing its reasons for the certification or

finding;

or

(B) a statute provides otherwise.

Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3).

The district clerk must immediately notify the parties and the court of appeals when

the district court does any of the following:

(A) denies a motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis;

(B) certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith; or

(C) finds that the party is not otherwise entitled to proceed in forma pauperis. 

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

Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis in this action, Plaintiff is entitled to proceed

in forma pauperis on appeal unless the Court finds his appeal is not taken in good faith or finds that

he is not otherwise entitled to proceed in forma pauperis. For this reason, Plaintiff’s declaration filed

on March 27, 2005, is disregarded. Fed. R. Ap. P. 24(a)(3). As set forth below, by this order the

Court is making a finding that Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.

Accordingly, any future motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on this appeal must be filed

with the Ninth Circuit rather than with this Court.

Plaintiff’s appeal of the Court’s order of March 15, 2006, is premature because this action

is still pending in the district court and judgment has not been entered for Defendants Snow, Nguyen,

Smith, Ramirez, and Bradish, and against Plaintiff. Because judgment has not been entered - and

will not be entered until the resolution of Plaintiff’s remaining claim against Defendant Katukota -

Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status is hereby revoked as to the appeal he filed on March 28, 2006,

on the ground that the order appealed is not final and appealable. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s declaration regarding in forma pauperis status, filed March 27, 2006, is

DISREGARDED;

2. Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis on the appeal filed on March 28,

2006;

3. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(4), this order shall serve as

Case 1:03-cv-06658-LJO -SMS Document 139 Filed 04/04/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

notice to the parties and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit of

the finding that Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis for this appeal;

and

4. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order on the parties and the United

States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 29, 2006 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06658-LJO -SMS Document 139 Filed 04/04/06 Page 3 of 3