1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 JOHNNY JONES, Case No. 3:21-cv-00030-MMD-CLB

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 JERRY HOWELL, et al., 9 Defendants. 10

11 This matter is referred to the Court for the limited purpose of determining whether 12 in forma pauperis status should continue on appeal. (ECF No. 14.) The Court certifies 13 that any in forma pauperis appeal from its order of dismissal would be frivolous or would 14 not be taken “in good faith” pursuant to

(a)(3). Jones’ complaint was 15 dismissed because his claims appeared barred by Nettles v. Grounds,

(9th 16 Cir. 2016), Preiser v. Rodriguez,

(1973), and Heck v. Humphrey,

477 (1994). The Court’s screening order told Jones that it was not clear from his 18 allegations if overturning the challenged disciplinary punishment would affect his release 19 date. (ECF No. 5.) Jones was given an opportunity to amend to cure that deficiency. (Id.) 20 He amended but did not cure the deficiency. The Court then gave Jones a second 21 chance to amend with more guidance. (ECF No. 9.) The deadline to file the second 22 amended complaint passed without any filing from Jones, and a few weeks later the 23 Court dismissed and closed the case. (ECF No. 10.) There is no merit to, or novel 24 question raised by, Jones’ appeal. 25 Jones’ in forma pauperis status should thus be revoked on appeal. See Hooker v. 26 American Airlines,

(9th Cir. 2002) (finding revocation of in forma 27 pauperis status is appropriate where the district court finds the appeal to be frivolous). 28 /// 1 The Clerk of Court is directed to transmit a copy of this order to the Court of 2 || Appeals and then terminate the referral notice (ECF No. 14). 3 DATED THIS 16" Day of March 2022.

5 □ MIRANDA M. DU 6 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2?