(UD)(PS) The Kind Project Downtown, LP v. Loyd

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 THE KIND PROJECT DOWNTOWN, LP, No. 2:24-cv-02925 -DJC-CSK 12 Plaintiff - Appellee, 13 v. ORDER 15 Defendant - Appellant. 16

17 18 Plaintiff originally filed this unlawful detainer action in Sacramento County 19 Superior Court. Defendant subsequently removed to federal court, but this Court 20 ultimately remanded the case back to the Superior Court. Defendant has now 21 appealed this Court’s decision to remand this action. Presently before this Court is 22 Defendant’s Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on appeal. Pursuant to Federal 23 Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(1), this request is properly before this Court. 24 On review of the affidavit provided by Defendant, it is apparent that Plaintiff has 25 an inability to pay fees and costs. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(A). However, the Court 26 ultimately denies Defendant’s request to proceed in forma pauperis. Under 28 U.S.C. 27 § 1915(a)(3), an appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis where “the trial court 28 certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” After review of the record, the 1 | Court finds that the appeal is frivolous and not taken in good faith. Hooker v. 2 | American Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002). 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma 4 | Pauperis (ECF No. 7) is denied. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1); see also 28 U.S.C. 5 | § 1915(a)(3). 6 j IT 1S SO ORDERED. 8 | Dated: _December 20, 2024 “Dane J CoO □□□□ Hon. Daniel alabretta ? UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28