Morris v. Gonzales
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- On appeal
- Sammy Morris v. G.A. Gonzales (2021-05-25) — affirmed — the Ninth Circuit's later ruling on this docket
- Panel
- Michael M. Anello (author)
Analysis
The Ninth Circuit referred the case to the District Court to determine if the plaintiff's appeal was frivolous or if his in forma pauperis (IFP) status should continue. The Court declined to revoke IFP status, finding the appeal was taken in good faith, and directed the Clerk to notify the Ninth Circuit.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Declined to revoke Plaintiff's in forma pauperis (IFP) status for the appeal.“Accordingly, the Court DECLINES to revoke Plaintiffs IFP status and DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to notify the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of this Order.” | agree with court The order recites the correct legal standard for determining if an appeal is frivolous (lacking any arguable basis in law or fact) and cites appropriate authority. It concludes that the appeal does not lack an arguable basis. While the order does not detail the specific legal arguments of the appeal, the application of the standard to the conclusion is logically consistent with the cited law. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the referral purpose, cites the relevant statutory and case law standards for determining frivolousness under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and applies that standard to the record. It reaches a defensible conclusion based on the stated standard.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SAMMIE LEE MORRIS, Case No. 19cv2378-MMA (AGS)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER RESPONDING TO 13 vs. REFERRAL NOTICE 14 [Doc. No. 11] 15 GONZALES, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff Sammie Lee Morris, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brought this civil 19 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that prison officials violated his 20 Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. On May 7, 2020, the Court dismissed 21 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b) 22 and entered judgment accordingly. See Doc. Nos. 5, 6. On May 23, 2020, Plaintiff 23 constructively filed a timely Notice of Appeal. See Doc. No. 8. 24 The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit now refers this matter for 25 the “limited purpose of determining whether in forma pauperis status should continue for 26 this appeal or whether the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith.” See Doc. No. 11. 27 Rule 24(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that a party granted 28 leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in district court may continue in that status on 1 || appeal unless the district court certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith, which in 2 context means that it is frivolous. See Ellis v. United States, 356 U.S. 674, 674-75 3 ||(1958). Title 28, United States Code, section 1915(a)(3), similarly provides that an 4 ||appeal may not be taken IFP if the trial court certifies it is not taken in good faith. For 5 || purposes of section 1915, an appeal is “frivolous” if it lacks any arguable basis in law or 6 ||fact. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 7 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1984). After review of the record herein, the Court concludes that 8 || Plaintiff's appeal does not lack any arguable basis in law or fact, and thus should be 9 considered as having been taken “in good faith” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). 10 Accordingly, the Court DECLINES to revoke Plaintiffs IFP status and 11 DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to notify the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of this 12 || Order. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(4). 13 IT ISSO ORDERED. 14 DATE: June 9, 2020 What eke Ta = i Ls 15 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28