(PC) Spillard v. Costa ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EVERETT SPILLARD, II, No. 2:20-cv-0702 KJM CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 COSTA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On September 24, 2021, the magistrate judge dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint for 18 failure to state a claim. Prev. Order (Sept. 24, 2021) at 14, ECF No. 14. The magistrate judge 19 noted that the allegations were “vague, confusing and conclusory.” Id. Rather than filing an 20 amended complaint, the plaintiff chose to rest on the allegations of his previously dismissed 21 complaint. See Findings and Recommendations at 1, ECF No. 16. On January 12, 2022, this 22 court dismissed the case. ECF No. 20. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on February 7, 2022. 23 ECF No. 22. 24 On February 25, 2022, the Ninth Circuit asked that this court determine whether plaintiff’s 25 in forma pauperis status should continue on appeal or whether in forma pauperis status should be 26 revoked because the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); see 27 also Hooker v. American Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002) (revocation of in forma 28 pauperis status appropriate where district court finds appeal is frivolous). ] For the reasons stated in the magistrate judge’s order dated September 24, 2021, the 2 | magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations dated October 28, 2021, and this court’s order 3 || of dismissal, plaintiffs appeal is frivolous and taken in bad faith. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff? in forma pauperis status is 5 || revoked for purposes of appeal. 6 | DATED: August 10, 2022. 7 8 ( ti / ¢ q_/ 9 CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28