Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02925/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02925-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lanita J. Loyd
Defendant
The Kind Project Downtown, LP
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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE KIND PROJECT DOWNTOWN, LP,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LANITA J. LOYD,

Defendant -

Appellant.

No. 2:24-cv-02925 -DJC-CSK

ORDER

Plaintiff originally filed this unlawful detainer action in Sacramento County 

Superior Court. Defendant subsequently removed to federal court, but this Court 

ultimately remanded the case back to the Superior Court. Defendant has now 

appealed this Court’s decision to remand this action. Presently before this Court is 

Defendant’s Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on appeal. Pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(1), this request is properly before this Court.

On review of the affidavit provided by Defendant, it is apparent that Plaintiff has 

an inability to pay fees and costs. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(A). However, the Court

ultimately denies Defendant’s request to proceed in forma pauperis. Under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a)(3), an appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis where “the trial court 

certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” After review of the record, the 

Case 2:24-cv-02925-DJC-CSK Document 8 Filed 12/20/24 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

27

28

2

Court finds that the appeal is frivolous and not taken in good faith. Hooker v. 

American Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis (ECF No. 7) is denied. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1); see also 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a)(3).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 20, 2024 

Hon. Daniel J. Calabretta

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-02925-DJC-CSK Document 8 Filed 12/20/24 Page 2 of 2