(PS) Miller v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HERBERT EDWARD MILLER, No. 2:21–cv–61–JAM–KJN 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 13 v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC, et al., (ECF No. 38.) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Presently pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis 18 (“IFP”) on appeal, filed in tandem with his notice of interlocutory appeal. (ECF No. 38.) 19 Although plaintiff is currently still represented by counsel, the district judge assigned to this case 20 referred the IFP matter to the undersigned for resolution under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. 21 Civ. P. 72. (See ECF No. 40.) 22 For the reasons stated below, the undersigned recommends plaintiff’s IFP motion be 23 denied. See Tripati v. Rison, 847 F.2d 548, 548-49 (9th Cir. 1988) (absent consent of all parties, 24 magistrate judge lacks authority to issue dispositive order denying in forma pauperis status). 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 Background 2 In January 2021, plaintiff (represented by counsel) paid the filing fee and filed a complaint 3 against defendants J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., Caliber Home Loans, Inc., and U.S. Bank 4 Trust, N.A. (ECF No. 1.) As such, plaintiff was not previously granted in forma pauperis status 5 in the district court. 6 Defendants entered their appearances, and filed motions to dismiss and to declare plaintiff 7 a vexatious litigant; plaintiff opposed. (ECF Nos. 8, 10, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21.) On June 10, 2021, 8 the assigned district judge granted defendants’ motion to dismiss in part and denied in part, 9 ultimately leaving a sole claim for conversion against U.S. Bank. (ECF No. 28.) The district 10 judge also entered a vexatious litigant order against plaintiff, restricting him from filing any more 11 claims in this court against defendants regarding his mortgage. (ECF No. 29.) The court issued 12 judgment in favor of defendant J.P. Morgan Chase, and defendants Caliber and U.S. Bank filed 13 answers. (ECF No. 33, 34, 35.) 14 On July 6, 2021, counsel for plaintiff moved to be relieved as counsel, which plaintiff did 15 not oppose, and the matter was set for a September 14, 2021 hearing. (ECF No. 36.) The 16 following day, plaintiff himself filed a notice of interlocutory appeal and the instant motion to 17 proceed IFP in his interlocutory appeal. (ECF Nos 37, 38.) 18 Legal Standards 19 Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1915 authorizes a party to proceed in an action “without 20 prepayment of fees or security” if that party is unable to pay such fees. However, under 21 subsection (a)(3), “[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in 22 writing that it is not taken in good faith.” The good faith standard is an objective one. Coppedge 23 v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). A plaintiff satisfies the “good faith” requirement if he 24 or she seeks review of any issue that is “not frivolous.” Gardner v. Pogue, 558 F.2d 548, 551 (9th 25 Cir. 1977) (quoting Coppedge, 369 U.S. at 445). 26 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24 provides that “a party to a district-court action 27 who desires to appeal in forma pauperis must file a motion in the district court.” Fed. R. App. P. 28 24(a)(1). 1 Analysis 2 The court finds plaintiff’s application should be denied for two reasons. As to the core 3 reason for plaintiff’s application, the undersigned finds plaintiff does not qualify for IFP status 4 based on his affidavit. Plaintiff attests he has a annual retirement income of $17,500 and has 5 $500 in liquid assets. (See ECF No. 38.) According to the United States Department of Health 6 and Human Services, the current poverty guideline for a household of 1 (not residing in Alaska or 7 Hawaii) is $12,880.00. See https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines. As plaintiff’s gross 8 household income is over the 2021 poverty guideline, the court cannot find plaintiff qualifies for 9 IFP status. To be sure, the court is sympathetic to the fact that plaintiff does not have a large 10 income, and that plaintiff also has several expenses to contend with. However, numerous litigants 11 in this district have significant monthly expenditures, and may have to make difficult choices as 12 to which expenses to incur, which expenses to reduce or eliminate, and how to apportion their 13 income between such expenses and litigating an action in federal court. Such difficulties in 14 themselves do not amount to indigency. Thus, the court recommends plaintiff’s IFP motion be 15 denied. See Tripati, 847 F.2d at 548-49 (denials of in forma pauperis status to be resolved on 16 findings and recommendations by magistrate judge). 17 Further, the undersigned finds plaintiff’s appeal is frivolous. As noted in the district 18 court’s vexatious litigant order, plaintiff’s causes of action related to his mortgage (the same on 19 which he is attempting to appeal from) were explicitly found to be frivolous: 20 As discussed more thoroughly in [the dismissal] Order, those claims are premised on the theory that Defendants or their 21 assignors, had no right to foreclose upon the property, something the State Court rejected not once but twice. Accordingly, these 22 claims are all barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The Court also finds this has been done in a harassing manner. This is the fourth 23 suit Plaintiff has brought to disrupt foreclosure of the Property. This is in addition to numerous bankruptcy proceedings and an adversary 24 complaint. 25 ((ECF No. 29.) at 3 (cleaned up).) Plaintiff’s appeal should be certified as not taken in good 26 faith.1 27 1 Further of note, plaintiff’s sixth claim against Caliber and U.S. Bank is still live, and the district 28 court has yet to rule on whether counsel will be excused from representing plaintiff. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS 2 For the above reasons, the undersigned recommends plaintiffs application to proceed IFP 3 || in his interlocutory appeal be denied. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the 4 | United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 5 || § 636(b)(1). No objections period is required for IFP denials. Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 6 | 1113, 1114 (th Cir. 1998), as amended (Sept. 9, 1998) (“[Plaintiff] was not entitled to file 7 || written objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation that [his] application to proceed in 8 | forma pauperis be denied.”). 9 || Dated: July 12, 2021 0 Foci) Aharon 11 KENDALL J. NE mill. 61 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28