Case 8:18-cv-00643-SVW-ADS Document 181 Filed 03/16/22 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:2005

1 2 3 4 5 6

7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NANCY CAROLYN WOOD, Case No. 8:18-00643 SVW (ADS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ACCEPTING UNITED STATES

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND

14 CITY OF SANTA ANA, et al., RECOMMENDATION 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Report and 18 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge, (Dkt. No. 179), Plaintiff Nancy C. 19 Wood’s objections to the Report and Recommendation, (Dkt. No. 180), and the record 20 in this case. The Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report 21 and Recommendation to which objections were made. Plaintiff raises only two relevant 22 arguments in her 35-page long objections. First, she argues the Court cannot revoke her 23 in forma pauperis status on appeal because revocations are only proper for prisoners, 24 which she is not. A court has the authority, however, to revoke a non-prisoner’s in Case 8:18-cv-00643-SVW-ADS Document 181 Filed 03/16/22 Page2of2 Page ID #:20D6

1 || forma pauperis status on appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See Hooker v. Am. 2 || Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002) (applying 28 U.S.C. § 1915 toa 3 ||non-prisoner civil case); see also McClellon v. Wells Fargo Advisors Fin. Network, LLC, 4 || No. 2:18-cv-00852-JCC, 2019 3815133, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 5, 2019) (“While [28 5 || U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)] refers to prisoner appeals, it applies equally to all civil litigants.”). 6 || Plaintiffs first objection is overruled. 7 Second, Plaintiff contends the appeal is not frivolous and is taken in good faith 8 || because the Third Amended Complaint alleges sufficient facts to state her claims against 9 ||the defendants. The Court disagrees. Plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint was 10 || properly dismissed because it failed to state a claim for relief and because of Plaintiffs 11 || failure to prosecute the case and comply with court orders. (See Dkt. Nos. 155, 163, 168, 12 |}176.) Plaintiffs second objection is overruled. 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 14 1. The Report and Recommendation is accepted, (Dkt. No. 179); 15 2. Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status is hereby revoked. 16 ||DATED: March 16, 2022 LoL,

THE HONORABLE STEFHEN V. WILSON

17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24