Bordin v. Rau

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 kee 4 || RICHARD BORDIN, Case No. 3:23-CV-00449-CLB Plaintiffs, ORDER 6 Vv. 7 || JON RAU, et. al., 8 Defendants. 9 10 This matter is referred to the Court for the limited purpose of determining whether 11 || in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status should continue on appeal. (ECF No. 38.) This Court 12 || certifies that any IFP appeal from its order of dismissal would be frivolous or would not 13 || be taken “in good faith” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See International Union of 14 || Bricklayers & Allied Craftsman v. Martin Jaska, Inc., 752 F.2d 1401, 1406 (9th Cir. 1985) 15 || (“A frivolous appeal [under Rule 38] is defined as one in which the result is obvious, or 16 || where the appellants’ claims are utterly meritless.”); Hooker v. American Airlines, 302 17 || F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002) (revocation of IFP status is appropriate where district 18 || court finds the appeal to be frivolous). Accordingly, Plaintiff's IFP status should be 19 || revoked on appeal. 20 |} DATE: May 20, 2024 . . 21 22 UNITED tnasrr JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28