From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Arambula v. Hedgpeth

United States District Court, N.D. California
Apr 25, 2011
No. C 10-1523 MHP (pr) (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2011)

Opinion

No. C 10-1523 MHP (pr).

April 25, 2011


ORDER


After this action was dismissed and judgment entered last month, plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docket # 10). The application is DENIED because the court already denied pauper status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) in the order of dismissal. If the new pauper application was intended to be a pauper application for an intended appeal, it is DENIED because the court now certifies that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Also after entry of judgment, plaintiff filed a "motion for an objection and request to change of venue on the grounds of judge prejudice and petition for disqualification of a judge." (Docket # 11) (errors in source). The motion is DENIED because (a) the recusal request is untimely and not accompanied by a sufficient affidavit of bias necessary for recusal, see 28 U.S.C. § 144, and (b) the request for change of venue is untimely and incomprehensible. Neither filing is construed to be a notice of appeal because neither states or implies that an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is intended. Cf. Estrada v. Scribner, 512 F.3d 1227, 1236 (9th Cir. 2008).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 22, 2011


Summaries of

Arambula v. Hedgpeth

United States District Court, N.D. California
Apr 25, 2011
No. C 10-1523 MHP (pr) (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2011)
Case details for

Arambula v. Hedgpeth

Case Details

Full title:GONZALO ARAMBULA, Plaintiff, v. ANTONY HEDGPETH, warden; et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, N.D. California

Date published: Apr 25, 2011

Citations

No. C 10-1523 MHP (pr) (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2011)