Wakefield v. Arizona, State of

1 WO 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Glenn Wakefield, No. CV-19-03273-PHX-DJH 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. State of Arizona, et al., 13 Defendant.

15 This matter is before the Court on a Referral Notice from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. (Doc. 11). The Circuit asks this Court to determine whether in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status should continue for the appeal or whether the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith.

19 This Court initially granted IFP status based on the information contained in Plaintiff’s IPF Application. (Doc. 2). The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s initial one-page Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, allowing him leave to amend. (Doc. 6). Plaintiff was warned that his case would be dismissed if he failed to file a complying amended complaint. Plaintiff subsequently filed a one-page First Amended Complaint, which the Court again found did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted. (Docs. 7 and 8). The Clerk of Court terminated the matter.

26 28 U.S.C. § 1915 mandates that “[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” 28 U.S.C.A. § 28 1915(a)(3)'. The Court finds that based on its ruling that Plaintiff's Complaint and First || Amended Complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, that the || appeal is frivolous. Therefore, the Court will revoke its previous IFP status determination.

4 Accordingly, 5 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's IFP status is revoked.

6 Dated this 9th day of August, 2019.

énorable'Diang/. Hunfetewa 10 United States District Fudge 1] 12 . i, CC: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 19-16507); Molly C. Dwyer, Clerk, U.S. Court 13 of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

24|| | “While much of § 1915 outlines how prisoners can file proceedings in forma pauperis, §1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis proceedings, not just those filed by prisoners.”

Long v. Maricopa Cmty. College Dist., 2012 WL 588965, at *1 (D. Ariz. Feb. 22, 2012) (citing Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 n. 7 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[S]ection 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints[.|”); see also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.’’)

28 || (citation omitted). Therefore, section 1915 applies to this non-prisoner IFP complaint.

-2-