(PS) Huang v. United States Postal Service ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HAN JING HUANG, No. 2:19-cv-00477-TLN-KJN 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE; et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Han Jing Huang (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, brings this civil action pursuant 19 to 29 U.S.C. § 185(a). The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 20 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On August 29, 2019, the magistrate judge issued an order denying Plaintiff’s motion to 22 proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (ECF No. 18 at 21–28) on the basis that the instant appeal 23 was frivolous and not taken in good faith. (ECF No. 22.) Pursuant to the order issued by the 24 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on October 24, 2019, this Court construes the magistrate judge’s 25 August 29, 2019, order as findings and recommendations.1 The Court further notes Plaintiff filed 26 1 On August 2, 2019, this Court adopted findings and recommendations to dismiss 27 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, without leave to amend, as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff appealed the judgement. (ECF No. 18.) On August 29, 2019, the 28 magistrate judge issued an order denying Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on 1 supplemental Objections to the Findings and Recommendations to dismiss the First Amended 2 Complaint (ECF No. 10), but has not objected to the denial of his motion to proceed in forma 3 pauperis on appeal. (See ECF No. 26.) 4 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304(f), this 5 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 6 Court finds the order issued on August 29, 2019, construed as Findings and Recommendations, to 7 be supported by the record and the magistrate judge’s analysis. Plaintiff’s supplemental 8 objections to the findings and recommendations to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint 9 (ECF No. 11), filed on November 21, 2019 (ECF No. 26), are overruled as moot. 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. The order issued on August 29, 2019, which the Court construes as Findings and 12 Recommendations (ECF No. 22), is adopted in full; and 13 2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (see ECF No. 21 at 21–28) is 14 DENIED, on the basis that the instant appeal is frivolous and not taken in good faith. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: December 18, 2019 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 appeal. (ECF No. 22.) On October 24, 2019, the Ninth Circuit vacated the August 29, 2019, order on the basis that the magistrate judge lacked authority to issue the dispositive order denying 26 in forma pauperis status where not all parties had consented to proceed before the magistrate 27 judge, and remanded the matter to this Court for the limited purpose of conducting further proceedings as to whether Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal should be 28 granted or denied. (ECF No. 25, citing Tripati v. Rison, 847 F.2d 548 (9th Cir. 1988).)