Washington v. Keegan

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JASON LEVETTE WASHINGTON, Case No. 22-cv-03028-SI 8 Plaintiff, ORDER REVOKING IN FORMA 9 Vv. PAUPERIS STATUS FOR APPEAL 10 M. KEEGAN, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 40 11 Defendants. 12

13 The Court dismissed the first amended complaint, which failed to correct deficiencies in the 14 || original complaint, failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and sought federal 3 15 || court review of a state court judgment in violation of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Reusser v. a 16 || Wachovia Bank, N.A., 525 F.3d 855, 858 (9th Cir. 2008). 3 17 An appeal is taken in “good faith” where it seeks review of any issue that is “non-frivolous.” 18 Hooker v. American Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002). The “good faith” standard is an 19 || objective one. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). “[A]n issue is frivolous if 20 it has no arguable basis in fact or law.” O'Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1990) 21 (cleaned up). The Court now certifies that the appeal is frivolous and not taken in good faith and 22 || revokes in forma pauperis status for plaintiff on appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 || Dated: April 12, 2023 | 25 SUSAN ILLSTON 26 United States District Judge 27 28