Cohea v. Pliler

Full title: DANNY JAMES COHEA, Plaintiff, v. CHERYL K. PLILER, et al., Defendants.

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Sep 25, 2015

2:00-cv-2799-GEB-EFB P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 25, 2015)

Opinion

DANNY JAMES COHEA, Plaintiff, v. CHERYL K. PLILER, et al., Defendants. No. 2:00-cv-2799-GEB-EFB P United States District Court, E.D. California. September 25, 2015

          ORDER

          EDMUND F. BRENNAN, Magistrate Judge.

         Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis and without counsel, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Judgment was entered on August 4, 2015. On September 9, 2015, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal and a request to proceed in forma pauperis. The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provide as follows:

A party who was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in the district-court action... may proceed on appeal in forma pauperis without further authorization unless the district court... certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith or finds that the party is not otherwise entitled to proceed in forma pauperis....

         Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3). This court has not certified that plaintiff's appeal is not taken in good faith and has not otherwise found that he is not entitled to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis.

         Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (ECF No. 342) is denied as unnecessary.