Jermain Lamar Bankston v. Academy of Art University, et al.

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 JERMAIN LAMAR BANKSTON, Case No. 25-cv-04988-JST 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 9 Vv. LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS 10 ACADEMY OF ART UNIVERSITY, et al., Re: ECF No. 34 Defendants. a 12 13 Before the Court is Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal to the || Ninth Circuit. ECF No. 34. The Court will deny the motion.

15 “An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it A 16 || is not taken in good faith.” 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(a)(3). Bankston alleges that Defendants = 17 discriminated and failed to accommodate his disabilities. ECF No. 28. However, as the Court and Z 18 || the magistrate court discussed in each of the three orders screening and dismissing Plaintiff || Bankston’s complaint, Bankston has not identified a single factual allegation supporting an 20 inference of discriminatory or unlawful conduct. ECF Nos. 6, 27, 30. Therefore, it is the || judgment of this Court that Plaintiff's complaint is frivolous, as it “has “no arguable basis in fact 22 or law.’” O'Loughlin vy. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Franklin v. Murphy, 745 || F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir. 1984)). Appeal of the dismissal is not “taken in good faith” within the 24 meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).

25 IT IS SO ORDERED.

26 Dated: January 5, 2026 .

27 JON S. TIGA 28 nited States District Judge