(PC) Aytman v. Pfieffer

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 25, 2024
• Docket: 1:23-cv-00382
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TORIAN AYTMAN, No. 1:23-cv-00382 JLT BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, Appeal No. 24-247 13 v. ORDER REVOKING IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS ON APPEAL 14 PFIEFFER, et al., (Doc. 22) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Torian Aytman is a state prisoner who proceeded pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 18 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court dismissed the action for failure to state and 19 entered judgment. (Docs. 17, 18.) On January 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed a letter to the Court, (Doc. 20 19), which was processed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit as Case No. 21 24-247, (Docs. 20, 21). 22 The Ninth Circuit referred this matter to the District Court for the limited purpose of 23 determining whether in forma pauperis status should continue for this appeal or whether the 24 appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); see also Hooker v. 25 American Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002) (revocation of in forma pauperis status is 26 appropriate where the District Court finds the appeal to be frivolous). 27 Permitting litigants to proceed in forma pauperis is a privilege, not a right. Franklin v. 28 Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1231 (9th Cir. 1984); Williams v. Field, 394 F.2d 329, 332 (9th Cir., cert. 1 | denied, 393 U.S. 891 (1968)); Williams v. Marshall, 795 F. Supp. 978, 978-79 (N.D. Cal. 1992). 2 | A federal court may dismiss a claim filed in forma pauperis prior to service if the action is 3 | frivolous or malicious. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see Sully v. Lungren, 842 F. Supp. 1230, 1231 4 | (N.D. Cal. 1994). Ifa plaintiff, who is proceeding in forma pauperis, brings a case without 5 | arguable substance in law and fact, the court may declare the case frivolous. Franklin, 745 F.2d 6 | at 1227. 7 Here, the Magistrate Judge screened the Second Amended Complaint and issued Findings 8 | and Recommendations that Plaintiffs action be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The Court 9 | adopted the Findings and Recommendations in full. Despite not filing any objections to the 10 | Findings and Recommendations—or otherwise responding thereto—Plaintiff now appeals the 11 | dismissal and argues that Court is engaged in obstruction of justice and fostering a culture of 12 | corruption. (Doc. 19.) Plaintiff further alleges that he will submit an ethics and malpractice 13 | complaint or an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States or a complaint under the RICO 14 | Act. Ud.) The Court finds that based on the submitted materials, Plaintiff's appeal is frivolous 15 | and not taken in good faith. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 16 1. The appeal is declared frivolous and not taken in good faith. 17 2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in forma 18 pauperis in Appeal No. 24-247, filed January 11, 2024. 19 3. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(4), this order serves as 20 notice to the parties and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit of 21 the finding that Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis for this appeal 22 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the parties and the 23 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 24 95 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ January 25, 2024 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28