Opinion
Case No. C02-5498RBL.
May 4, 2007
ORDER
THIS MATTER comes on before the above-entitled Court upon Plaintiff's Motion for Hearing [Dkt. #53] and Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [Dkt. #55], and Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal [Dkt. #58].
The Court notes that plaintiff was previously granted in forma pauperis status [Dkt. #6].
Having considered the entirety of the records and file herein, the Court finds and rules as follows:
Plaintiff has filed a Notice of Appeal [Dkt. #58]. "The filing of a notice of appeal `confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.'" United States v. Ortega-Lopez, 988 F.2d 70, 72 (9th Cir. 1992), quoting Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982). The Clerk is therefore directed to strike docket numbers 53 and 55. The Court DENIES plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on appeal pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 24(a)(3)(A) because this appeal is not taken in good faith. Plaintiff is attempting to appeal a judgment entered on September 6, 2003 9Dkt. #44] which is beyond the 30-day time limitation contained in Fed.R.App.P. 4.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Clerk shall send uncertified copies of this order to all counsel of record, to any party appearing pro se, and to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.