Ramsell v. Wallace

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5

9 Craig Eugene Ramsell, et al., No. CV-24-08161-PCT-DJH

10 Plaintiffs, ORDER

11 v.

12 Linda Wallace, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has referred this matter to 16 the District Court for the limited purpose of determining whether in forma pauperis (“IFP”) 17 status should continue for this appeal or whether the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad 18 faith. (Doc. 23 at 1); see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); see also Hooker v. Amer. Airlines, 302 19 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002) (revocation of in forma pauperis status is appropriate 20 where the district court finds the appeal to be frivolous). 21 Pro se Plaintiffs Craig Eugene Ramsell and Monnie Ramsell (“Plaintiffs”) filed 22 Application to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 18) and the Court granted 23 them IFP status. (Doc. 19 at 1). Because of this, the Court screened Plaintiffs’ claims 24 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and found that Plaintiffs had failed to state a claim for 25 relief. (Id. at 6). After the Court’s statutory screening, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. 26 (Doc. 21). 27 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), “[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if 28 the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” The good faith standard is an objective one, and good faith is demonstrated when an individual “seeks appellate review of any issue [that is] not frivolous.” Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). An appeal is frivolous if it lacks any arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). 5 The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ appeal is frivolous because it lacks any arguable basis in law or fact. See id. The Court makes this determination for the same reasons as stated in its August 30, 2024, Order. (See Doc. 19). The Court certifies that plaintiff’s 8 appeal is not taken in good faith and is frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). So, their IFP status should be revoked. Hooker, 302 F.3d at 1092. 10 Accordingly, 11 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis in Appeal No. 24-5869. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall notify the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that this Court certifies that Plaintiffs’ appeal 15 is not taken in good faith under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3)(A) and they must therefore seek further authorization from the Court of Appeals pursuant to Rule 17 24(a)(5) to obtain leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. 18 IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is kindly directed to serve a copy of this Order on Plaintiffs and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 20 Circuit. 21 Dated this 3rd day of October, 2024. 22 23 5 fe □□ 24 norable' Diang/4. Hunfetewa 5 United States District Judge 26 27 28

_2-