(PS) Huang v. United States Postal Service

E.D. California

(PS) Huang v. United States Postal Service

DecidedAugust 29, 2019

Docket2:19-cv-00477

StatusUnknown

This text of (PS) Huang v. United States Postal Service ((PS) Huang v. United States Postal Service) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

(PS) Huang v. United States Postal Service, (E.D. Cal. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HAN JING HUANG, No. 2:19-cv-477-TLN-KJN PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On May 29, 2019, the undersigned recommended dismissal of this action with prejudice, 18 as the first amended complaint was found to be frivolous; the order was adopted by the district 19 judge and judgment was entered on August 2, 2019. (ECF Nos. 10, 16.) On August 15, 2019, 20 plaintiff, who had proceeded without counsel and in forma pauperis in the district court, filed a 21 notice of appeal. (ECF Nos. 2, 18.) On August 21, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 22 referred to the district court the question of whether in forma pauperis status should continue for 23 the appeal, or whether the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith. (ECF No. 21.) 24 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24 provides that “a party to a district-court action 25 who desires to appeal in forma pauperis must file a motion in the district court.” Fed. R. App. P. 26 24(a)(1). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), “[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if 27 the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” The good faith standard is an 28 1 | objective one. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). A plaintiff satisfies the 2 | “good faith” requirement if he or she seeks review of any issue that is “not frivolous.” Gardner v. 3 | Pogue, 558 F.2d 548, 551 (9th Cir. 1977) (quoting Coppedge, 369 U.S. at 445). 4 For the reasons stated in the May 29, 2019 findings and recommendations (see ECF No. 5 | 10), as adopted by the district judge (ECF No. 16), the court finds that the instant appeal is 6 | frivolous. The court thus certifies that plaintiff's appeal is not taken in good faith. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (See ECF No. 21 at pp. 21— 9 | 28) is DENIED. 10 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on plaintiff and on the 11 | Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 | Dated: August 29, 2019 i Aectl Aharon 15 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HAN JING HUANG, No. 2:19-cv-477-TLN-KJN PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On May 29, 2019, the undersigned recommended dismissal of this action with prejudice, 18 as the first amended complaint was found to be frivolous; the order was adopted by the district 19 judge and judgment was entered on August 2, 2019. (ECF Nos. 10, 16.) On August 15, 2019, 20 plaintiff, who had proceeded without counsel and in forma pauperis in the district court, filed a 21 notice of appeal. (ECF Nos. 2, 18.) On August 21, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 22 referred to the district court the question of whether in forma pauperis status should continue for 23 the appeal, or whether the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith. (ECF No. 21.) 24 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24 provides that “a party to a district-court action 25 who desires to appeal in forma pauperis must file a motion in the district court.” Fed. R. App. P. 26 24(a)(1). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), “[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if 27 the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” The good faith standard is an 28 1 | objective one. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). A plaintiff satisfies the 2 | “good faith” requirement if he or she seeks review of any issue that is “not frivolous.” Gardner v. 3 | Pogue, 558 F.2d 548, 551 (9th Cir. 1977) (quoting Coppedge, 369 U.S. at 445). 4 For the reasons stated in the May 29, 2019 findings and recommendations (see ECF No. 5 | 10), as adopted by the district judge (ECF No. 16), the court finds that the instant appeal is 6 | frivolous. The court thus certifies that plaintiff's appeal is not taken in good faith. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (See ECF No. 21 at pp. 21— 9 | 28) is DENIED. 10 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on plaintiff and on the 11 | Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 | Dated: August 29, 2019 i Aectl Aharon 15 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(PS) Huang v. United States Postal Service, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ps-huang-v-united-states-postal-service-caed-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack