Khan v. City of Pinole Police Department ( 2020 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 DAVID KHAN, ET. AL., CASE No. 4:19-cv-06316-YGR 5 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE: NINTH CIRCUIT REFERRAL 6 vs. NOTICE 7 CITY OF PINOLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET. Re: Dkt. No. 63 3 AL., Defendants. 9 10 On July 2, 2020, the Court issued its Order which, as relevant here, granted defendants’ 11 motions to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 60.) On that same day, plaintiff David Khan filed a Notice of 12 Appeal from the Court’s July 2, 2020 Order. (Dkt. No. 61.) On July 14, 2020, the Ninth Circuit 13 || referred the matter to this Court for a determination of whether Khan’s in forma pauperis (‘IFP’’) 14 || status should continue for this appeal. (Dkt. No. 63.) 3 15 This Court determines that it should not. There are no valid grounds on which an appeal 16 || can be based. Consequently, the Court certifies that any appeal taken from its July 2, 2020 Order 2 17 || will not be taken in good faith and is therefore frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. Z 18 P. CFRAP”’) 24(a)(3)(A); Ellis v. United States, 356 U.S. 674, 674-75 (1958); Hooker v. American 19 Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, Khan’s IFP status is REVOKED. 20 The Clerk of the Court shall forthwith notify Khan and the Ninth Circuit of this 21 Order. See FRAP 24(a)(4). Khan may file a motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal in the 22 Ninth Circuit within thirty (30) days after service of notice of this Order. See FRAP 24(a)(5). 23 || Any such motion “must include a copy of the affidavit filed in the district court and the district 24 || court’s statement of reasons for its action.” Id. 25 IT Is SO ORDERED. 26 27 || Dated: August 4, 2020 Lopont Hgtfflees 28 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE