(PC) Van Huisen v. Desantis ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 GREGORY S. VAN HUISEN, No. 2:23-cv-1758 WBS CSK 13 Plaintiff, Ninth Circuit No. 24-2616 14 v. ORDER 15 RON DESANTIS, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 ----oo0oo---- 19 After the court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Findings 20 and Recommendations and dismissed the case, plaintiff appealed. 21 (See Docket Nos. 25, 29, 38.) The Ninth Circuit has now referred 22 the matter back to this court “for the limited purpose of 23 determining whether in forma pauperis status should continue for 24 this appeal or whether the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad 25 faith” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and Hooker v. American 26 Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002). (Docket No. 55.) 27 For the reasons discussed in the Magistrate Judge’s 28 Findings and Recommendations, and as found in the court’s order —_——— eI IERIE RIE IRIE ES EIEIO 1 adopting those Findings and Recommendations, the court finds that 2 the complaint and plaintiff’s appeal are frivolous. As the 3 | Magistrate Judge found, “plaintiff’s second amended complaint is 4 incomprehensible, lacks substance and fails to identify how any 5 named defendant violated plaintiff’s federal statutory or 6 constitutional rights.” (Docket No. 25 at 4.) 7 Accordingly, plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status is 8 hereby REVOKED. See Hooker, 302 F.3d at 1092. The Clerk of 9 Court shall promptly notify the Ninth Circuit and the parties of 10 this determination and order. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 | Dated: May 6, 2024 oitiomn th. Ld. be—~ 13 WILLIAM B. SHUBB UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28