(PS) McDonald v. Department of Motor Vehicles

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MITCHEL MCDONALD, No.2:21-cv-1561 KJM DP PS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 Vv.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR

15 | VEHICLES INSACRAMENTO COUNTY, 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 On September 21, 2022, this court adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and 20 | recommendations and dismissed plaintiff McDonald’s complaint and request to proceed in forma 21 | pauperis (“IFP”). McDonald then filed a notice of appeal, ECF No. 15, and asks this court again 22 | to proceed IFP. ECF No. 19. This court construes movant’s motion as a request to proceed IFP 23 | on appeal, as dictated by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24. Fed. R. App. P. 24. For 24 | reasons provided below, the court denies plaintiffs motion. 25 Under Rule 24(a)(1), “a party to a district-court action who desires to appeal in forma 26 | pauperis must file a motion in the district court.” Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1). The motion must be 27 | accompanied by an affidavit that…