Cruz v. Ford

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 GUILLERMO TRUJILLO CRUZ, Case No. 19-cv-07649-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON 9 v. APPEAL

10 D. FORD, Re: Dkt. No. 21 11 Defendant.

12 13 Plaintiff filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dkt. No. 1. On 14 March 9, 2020, the Court revoked plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 15 § 1915(g) because, prior to the date that he filed this action, plaintiff had at least three cases 16 dismissed as “strikes” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Dkt. No. 13. The Court 17 ordered plaintiff to pay the filing and administrative fees in full if he wished to proceed with the 18 action. Dkt. No. 13. On April 29, 2020, the Court dismissed this action for failure to pay the 19 filing and administrative fees, and entered judgment in favor of defendants. Dkt. Nos. 15, 16. On 20 May 18, 2020, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Dkt. No. 21 17. Plaintiff has now filed a pleading titled “Ordering to Show Cause Regarding to In Forma 22 Pauperis and Have Case Proceed Forward.” Dkt. No. 21. Because this pleading requests that 23 plaintiff be allowed to pay the appellate court filing fees in installments, the Court construes this 24 pleading as a request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Dkt. No. 21. Plaintiff’s request to 25 proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is DENIED. Dkt. No. 21. The Court finds that the appeal is 26 not taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Hooker v. American Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 27 1092 (9th Cir. 2002). 1 This order terminates Dkt. No. 21. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 || Dated: 6/29/2020 / ) | | ‘ HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 5 United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 a 12

2B 14

15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28