Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Patrick A. Cannavan, identified in the order as a state prisoner, proceeded pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The assigned magistrate judge screened the complaint and found that the action duplicated Cannavan v. Newsom, Case No. 1:26-cv-05670-FJS (PC), referred to as Cannavan I. The magistrate judge recommended dismissal, and the district court adopted the findings and recommendations in full.
The district court dismissed this action as duplicative on October 13, 2026, and the Clerk entered judgment that same day. On October 19, Cannavan timely filed a notice of appeal and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. The November 3 order addresses that motion and his eligibility for IFP status on appeal; it does not revisit the merits of the underlying civil-rights claims or itself dismiss the appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The court explained that Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3) ordinarily allows a party who received IFP status in the district court to continue on appeal without further authorization. That permission ends if the district court certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith, or finds the party otherwise ineligible, and states its reasons in writing. Section 1915(a)(3) likewise bars an IFP appeal when the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.
Applying an objective standard, the court stated that good faith exists when a person seeks appellate review of an issue that is not frivolous. It further explained that, for section 1915 purposes, an appeal is frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Here, the court found that Cannavan's lawsuit was duplicative and had been dismissed as frivolous under section 1915(e). It also noted that numerous other cases he filed in the district were dismissed as duplicative of Cannavan I and that he was pursuing appeals in multiple of those cases.
The court therefore certified that Cannavan's appeal is not taken in good faith, denied his IFP motion, and ruled that he is not entitled to proceed IFP on appeal under section 1915(a)(3). It directed the Clerk to notify the Ninth Circuit of the certification under Rule 24(a)(3)(A), stating that Cannavan must seek further authorization from the court of appeals under Rule 24(a)(5). The Clerk also was directed to serve the order on the parties and the Ninth Circuit.
Key Takeaways
- Prior IFP status in the district court does not guarantee continued IFP status after the district court makes a written bad-faith certification.
- The court used an objective good-faith test asking whether the appeal presents any issue that is not frivolous.
- Cannavan's duplicative lawsuit, its frivolousness dismissal, and his other duplicative cases and appeals supported the certification in this order.
- The order denies IFP status on appeal but does not itself dismiss the appeal or decide the underlying civil-rights claims anew.
- Cannavan must obtain further authorization from the Ninth Circuit under Rule 24(a)(5) to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
Why It Matters
The order shows how a district court can revoke the practical benefit of continuing IFP status on appeal by providing written reasons for a good-faith certification. Its analysis connects the procedural history of duplicative filings to the statutory frivolousness standard rather than treating the earlier dismissal alone as automatic grounds for denial.
The immediate consequence is financial and procedural: Cannavan cannot rely on his district-court IFP status for this appeal and must seek authorization from the court of appeals. The certification and clerk's notice supply the Ninth Circuit with the district court's stated basis for that requirement.