Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02320/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02320-12/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Davis
Defendant
Joseph A. Sherman
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH A. SHERMAN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2320 LKK EFB PS

vs.

CITY OF DAVIS, ORDER

Defendant.

 /

On March 29, 2007, plaintiff filed a document styled “Petition for Writ of

Certiorari, alternatively Petition for Interlocutory Appeal.” It appears that plaintiff’s intent is to

appeal this court’s March 6, 2007, order affirming the decision to deny plaintiff’s motion to

amend his complaint to include claims under the “continuing violations doctrine.” Carpinteria

Valley Farms, Ltd. v. County of Santa Barbera, 344 F.3d 822, 828 (9th Cir. 2003). That order

further denied plaintiff’s motion to the extent it could be construed as a motion to certify for

interlocutory appeal. Plaintiff now appears to again seek appellate relief on this very same issue.

Included in plaintiff’s writ is an apparent request to proceed in forma pauperis on

appeal. To the extent this document can be construed as a motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis on appeal, the motion is denied. 

Case 2:04-cv-02320-LKK -EFB Document 92 Filed 06/21/07 Page 1 of 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

2

The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provide as follows:

[A] party who has been permitted to proceed in an action in the

district court in forma pauperis . . . may proceed on appeal in forma

pauperis without further authorization unless . . . the district court

shall certify that the appeal is not taken in good faith or shall find

that the party is otherwise not entitled so to proceed . . . . 

Fed. R. App. P. 24(a). The court finds that plaintiff’s appeal is not taken in good faith. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied.

SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 20, 2007.

Case 2:04-cv-02320-LKK -EFB Document 92 Filed 06/21/07 Page 2 of 2