(PC) Hanson v. Board of Parole Hearings

Opinion

6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 MALCOLM HANSON, Case No. 1:23-cv-00599-JLT-SAB (PC) 10 Appeal No. 23-15850 Plaintiff, 11 NOTICE AND ORDER FINDING THAT v. APPEAL WAS NOT TAKEN IN GOOD 12 FAITH BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS, et al., 13 (Doc. 16) Defendants. 14

15 16 This action was filed by pro se litigant Malcom Hanson on April 19, 2023, pursuant to 42 17 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was screened on April 25, 2023, at which time the assigned magistrate 18 judge recommended dismissal of the action for failure to state a claim because Plaintiff sought 19 to challenge the duration, not the conditions, of his confinement. (Doc. 9.) The undersigned 20 adopted the findings and recommendations on May 22, 2023, and Judgment entered the same 21 day. (Docs. 11, 12.) Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on June 5, 2023. (Docs. 11, 13.) On June 22 8, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit referred this action for 23 determination whether in forma pauperis status should continue on appeal, or whether the 24 appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith. (Doc. 16.) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate 25 Procedure 24(a)(4)(B), the Court now certifies that the appeal filed on June 5, 2023, was not 26 taken in good faith. 27 An appeal is taken in good faith if the appellant seeks review of any issue that is not frivolous. Gardner v. Pogue, 558 F.2d 548, 550-51 (9th Cir. 1977) (citing Coppedge v. United 1 | States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962)) (quotation marks omitted); see also Hooker v. American 2 | Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002) Cif at least one issue or claim is non-frivolous, 3 | the appeal must proceed in forma pauperis as a whole). This case was dismissed because 4 | Plaintiff did not challenge the conditions of his confinement but rather the duration, which is 5 | not proper under Section 1983. See Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573, 579 (2006) (“Challenges 6 | to the lawfulness of confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the province of 7 | habeas corpus”) (citation omitted). Therefore, the appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, the Court 8 | ORDERS: 9 1. Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(4)(B), the Court finds that the appeal is 10 frivolous and was not taken in good faith. 11 2. Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(4), the Clerk of the Court shall serve this 12 order on Plaintiff and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 13 4 IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ June 19, 2023 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28