(PS) Leskinen v. Perdue ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LAURA LESKINEN, No. 2:18-cv-453-TLN-KJN PS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 13 v. ON APPEAL 14 SONNY PERDUE, Secretary of the United (ECF No. 74.) States Department of Agriculture, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On June 21, 2019, the undersigned recommended that Defendant’s motion for summary 18 judgment be granted in full on Plaintiff’s Title VII claims (ECF No. 65). The district court 19 adopted these findings and recommendations and entered judgment in favor of Defendant. (ECF 20 Nos. 70, 71.) Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, and has requested leave to proceed in forma 21 pauperis before the Ninth Circuit. (ECF No. 74.) This is Plaintiff’s first IFP request. 22 Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24, “a party to a district-court action who 23 desires to appeal in forma pauperis must file a motion in the district court.” Fed. R. App. P. 24 24(a). The rule requires the party attach an affidavit that “(A) shows . . . the party's inability to 25 pay or to give security for fees and costs; (B) claims an entitlement to redress; and (C) states the 26 issues that the party intends to present on appeal.” Id. Finally, the rule provides that “[i]f the 27 district court grants the motion, the party may proceed on appeal without prepaying or giving 28 security for fees and costs, unless a statute provides otherwise.” Id. 1 Plaintiffs application in support of her request to proceed in forma pauperis makes the 2 | showing required by the Rule. Plaintiff claims an entitlement to redress and adequately states the 3 || issues she intends to appeal. Further, while the undersigned notes that Plaintiff initially paid the 4 | $400 filing fee when she instituted this action, her affidavit shows her current financial situation 5 | is such that she is unable to pay the filing fee to proceed with her appeal. Thus, Plaintiff's motion 6 || to proceed IFP on appeal is granted. See Patrick v. Pierce, 2019 WL 2493279, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 7 | June 14, 2019) (“The magistrate judge’s grant of plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis 8 | is anon-dispositive order that is well within the magistrate judge’s authority.”); Smith v. Officer 9 | Sergent, 2016 WL 6875892, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2016) (“[I]t is well settled that a magistrate 10 | judge may grant a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, but “thas no authority to issue a 11 | dispositive order denying in forma pauperis status absent compliance with section 636(c).” (citing 12 | Tripati v. Rison, 847 F.2d 548, 549 (9th Cir. 1988)). 13 For these reasons, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that Plaintiffs’ motion to proceed in 14 || forma pauperis on appeal (ECF No. 74) is GRANTED. 15 || Dated: December 9, 2019 Aectl Aharon 17 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 lesk.453 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28