Opinion
1:23-cv-00382 JLT BAM (PC) Appeal 24-247
01-25-2024
TORIAN AYTMAN, Plaintiff, v. PFIEFFER, et al., Defendants.
ORDER REVOKING IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS ON APPEAL
(DOC. 22)
Torian Aytman is a state prisoner who proceeded pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court dismissed the action for failure to state and entered judgment. (Docs. 17, 18.) On January 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed a letter to the Court, (Doc. 19), which was processed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit as Case No. 24-247, (Docs. 20, 21).
The Ninth Circuit referred this matter to the District Court for the limited purpose of determining whether in forma pauperis status should continue for this appeal or whether the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); see also Hooker v. American Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002) (revocation of in forma pauperis status is appropriate where the District Court finds the appeal to be frivolous).
Permitting litigants to proceed in forma pauperis is a privilege, not a right. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1231 (9th Cir. 1984); Williams v. Field, 394 F.2d 329, 332 (9th Cir., cert. denied, 393 U.S. 891 (1968)); Williams v. Marshall, 795 F.Supp. 978, 978-79 (N.D. Cal. 1992). A federal court may dismiss a claim filed in forma pauperis prior to service if the action is frivolous or malicious. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see Sully v. Lungren, 842 F.Supp. 1230, 1231 (N.D. Cal. 1994). If a plaintiff, who is proceeding in forma pauperis, brings a case without arguable substance in law and fact, the court may declare the case frivolous. Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.
Here, the Magistrate Judge screened the Second Amended Complaint and issued Findings and Recommendations that Plaintiff's action be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The Court adopted the Findings and Recommendations in full. Despite not filing any objections to the Findings and Recommendations-or otherwise responding thereto-Plaintiff now appeals the dismissal and argues that Court is engaged in obstruction of justice and fostering a culture of corruption. (Doc. 19.) Plaintiff further alleges that he will submit an ethics and malpractice complaint or an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States or a complaint under the RICO Act. (Id.) The Court finds that based on the submitted materials, Plaintiffs appeal is frivolous and not taken in good faith. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:
1. The appeal is declared frivolous and not taken in good faith.
2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis in Appeal No. 24-247, filed January 11, 2024.
3. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(4), this order serves as notice to the parties and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit of the finding that Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis for this appeal.
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the parties and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
IT IS SO ORDERED.