RAY v. BASA

Case No. 11-cv-02923-YGR (PR).

EDWARD V. RAY, Plaintiff, v. CAESAR BASA, et al., Defendants.

United States District Court, N.D. California.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Cause: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Edward V. Ray, Jr., Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Caesar Basa, Defendant, represented by Arlene Marcia Rosen , Office of the City Attorney.

Susan Shaddick, Defendant, represented by Benjamin A. Thompson , Haapala Thompson & Abern, LLP, Dylan Russell Williams , Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy, LLP & Rebecca S. Widen , Haapala, Thompson & Abern LLP.

George Phillips, Defendant, represented by Arlene Marcia Rosen , Office of the City Attorney.

Tom Nolan, Defendant, represented by Benjamin A. Thompson , Haapala Thompson & Abern, LLP, Dylan Russell Williams , Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy, LLP & Rebecca S. Widen , Haapala, Thompson & Abern LLP.


ORDER REVOKING IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, District Judge.

This closed federal civil rights action was filed by a pro se state prisoner. Summary judgment was granted in favor of Defendants, and judgment entered on March 27, 2015. Dkts. 72, 73. On March 24, 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this Court's ruling. Dkt. 77. The mandate issued on September 16, 2016. Dkt. 79.

On November 23, 2016, this Court denied Plaintiff's motions for relief from judgment. Dkt. 82.

On December 16, 2016, Plaintiff filed another Notice of Appeal. Dkt. 83.

The Ninth Circuit has referred the matter to this Court for a determination whether Plaintiff's in forma pauperis ("IFP") status should continue for this appeal. This Court determines that it should not. There are no valid grounds on which an appeal can be based. Consequently, the Court certifies that any appeal taken from its March 27, 2015 Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and from the accompanying judgment of this action will not be taken in good faith and is therefore frivolous. Fed. R. App. P. ("FRAP") 24(a)(3)(A); Ellis v. United States, 356 U.S. 674, 674-75 (1958); Hooker v. American Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, Plaintiff's IFP status is hereby REVOKED.

The Clerk of the Court shall forthwith notify Plaintiff and the Ninth Circuit of this Order. See FRAP 24(a)(4). Plaintiff may file a motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal in the Ninth Circuit within thirty (30) days after service of notice of this Order. See FRAP 24(a)(5). Any such motion "must include a copy of the affidavit filed in the district court and the district court's statement of reasons for its action." Id.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases