Muhammad

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JAMES KARIM MUHAMMAD, Case No. 18-cv-03601-JD 8 Plaintiff,

ORDER TERMINATING IFP STATUS

9 v. 10 CARLOS A. PRIVAT, et al., ll Defendants. 12 In Muhammad’s pending appeal, the Ninth Circuit made a limited referral to this Court to 13 || determine whether a prior grant of in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status should continue, or whether 14 || the appeal is frivolous and taken in bad faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Coppedge v. United States, 3 15 || 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). a 16 Muhammad is not entitled to continued IFP status on appeal. His original federal claims 3 17 || were dismissed because they lacked any arguable legal or factual basis. Dkt. No. 13. His request 18 || for reconsideration of the dismissal on the ground that the presiding judge was racially biased 19 || against him was denied on the same grounds. Dkt. No. 25. The appeal raises essentially the same 20 || frivolous issues and was taken in bad faith. Consequently, his IFP status is…