1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DONNIE SCOTT, Case No. 21-cv-01519-PJH

8 Plaintiff, ORDER REVOKING PLAINTIFF’S IN 9 v. FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS

10 JANET YELLEN, et al., Defendants. 11

12 13 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil action against a 14 governmental entity that was dismissed at screening. Plaintiff filed an appeal with the 15 Ninth Circuit, which re-engaged this court for the limited purpose of determining whether 16 plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status should continue, or whether the appeal is frivolous or 17 taken in bad faith. 18 An indigent party who cannot afford the expense of pursuing an appeal may file a 19 motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a);

1915(a)(1). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a), “a party to a district- 21 court action who desires to appeal in forma pauperis must file a motion in the district 22 court.” The party must attach an affidavit that (1) shows in detail “the party’s inability to 23 pay or give security for fees and costs,” (2) “claims an entitlement to redress,” and (3) 24 “states the issues that the party intends to present on appeal.” Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1). 25 But even if a party provides proof of indigence, “an appeal may not be taken in forma 26 pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.”

1915(a)(3). An appeal is in “good faith” where it seeks review of any issue that is “non- 1 “frivolous” if it has “no arguable basis in fact or law.” See O’Loughlin v. Doe,

(9th Cir. 1990). 3 In this action, plaintiff seeks court intervention in obtaining his economic impact 4 payment (“EIP”) pursuant to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (The 5 “CARES Act”),

Stat. 281 (2020) and Scholl v. Mnuchin, No. 20- 6 cv-5309 PJH, –––F.3d –––

(N.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2020). Plaintiff was 7 advised that he was not entitled to relief to the extent he sought the court to compel the 8 IRS to provide his EIP. The court in Scholl found that the EIP could not be denied only 9 because an individual was incarcerated. However, the court was clear that it took no 10 position on whether individual incarcerated plaintiffs were owed the EIP, which is the 11 relief sought in this case. That responsibility fell to the IRS to make an individual 12 determination. More importantly, funds cannot now be distributed pursuant to the 13 CARES Act. The CARES Act imposed a deadline of December 31, 2020, for EIPs to be 14 made or allowed. That deadline has passed, and no more funds may be issued. 15 Plaintiff’s action has no arguable basis in fact or law; therefore, plaintiff’s in forma 16 pauperis status is REVOKED. The clerk is requested to forward this order to the Ninth 17 Circuit in case No. 21-15750. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: April 28, 2021 20 21 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27