1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 CHRISTINA J. HANSON, Case No. 22-cv-01084-CRB 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. ORDER REVOKING IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS ON APPEAL 11 CHARLES DOWLING, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 In this case, pro se Plaintiff Christina Hanson alleged that Defendants implanted a 14 || “Stargate Remote Viewing Device” in her right eye. Compl. (dkt. 1). In her amended 15 || complaint, Hanson did not provide any further detail suggesting that her claims were at all 16 || plausible. Report and Recommendation (dkt. 20). On June 24, 2022, the Court adopted 5 17 || the Report and Recommendation and dismissed the case as lacking minimum legal 5 18 || viability under

(e)(2)(B). Order (dkt. 23). 19 After Hanson appealed, the Ninth Circuit referred the appeal to this Court for the 20 || limited purpose of determining whether in forma pauperis status should continue or 21 || whether the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith. See Dkt. 27. The Court hereby 22 || concludes that the appeal is frivolous and REVOKES in forma pauperis status. See 28 23 || U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Hooker v. American Airlines,

(9th Cir. 2002). 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: July 22, 2022 zc A YO CHARLES R. BREYER 26 United States District Judge 27 28