Austin v. Lyft, Inc.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 GEORGE JARVIS AUSTIN, Case No. 21-cv-09345-MMC
Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S IFP v. REQUEST; DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
LYFT, INC., Re: Doc. Nos. 49, 53 Defendant.
12 Before the Court are plaintiff George Jarvis Austin’s (“Austin”) (1) “Notice of 13 Appeal (and IFP Notice)” (“IFP Request”), filed January 24, 2022 (see Doc. No. 49), 14 which the Court construes as a request to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, and 15 (2) “Motion for Reconsideration,” filed January 25, 2022 (see Doc. No. 53), which the 16 Court construes as a request for reconsideration of the Court’s order filed the same date 17 (see Doc. No. 51). Having read and considered the papers filed in support of the request 18 and the motion, the Court rules as follows.1
A. IFP Request
20 “To proceed in forma pauperis is a privilege, not a right.” Smart v. Heinze, 347 21 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 1965). “[A] party to a district-court action who desires to appeal in 22 forma…