Brown v. Property and Casualty Insurance Company of Hartford ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CAROLYN BROWN, Case No. 1:20-cv-00186-JLT-SAB 12 Plaintiffs and Counter- ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED Defendants, IN FORMA PAUPERIS 13 v. (ECF No. 109) 14 PROPERTY AND CASUALTY 15 INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD, 16 Defendant and Counterclaimant. 17 18 On January 9, 2020, Plaintiffs and Counter-Defendants Carolyn Brown (“Brown”) and 19 Mecca Morgan (“Morgan”), appearing pro se, filed this property insurance coverage dispute 20 action in the Superior Court of California, County of Madera. On February 5, 2020, Defendant 21 and Counterclaimant Property and Casualty Insurance Company of Hartford (“Defendant” or 22 “Hartford”), removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. 23 (ECF No. 1.) On March 30, 2022, judgment was entered in favor of Hartford. (ECF No. 105.) 24 On April 20, 2022, Brown and Morgan filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of 25 Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. (ECF No. 106.) On April 22, 2022, Brown filed a motion to 26 proceed in forma pauperis with this Court. (ECF No. 109.) Thereafter, on the same date, the 27 Ninth Circuit issued an order stating that within twenty-one days, Brown and Morgan were to file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis with the Ninth Circuit, and forwarded a financial 1 | affidavit form to Brown and Morgan. (ECF No. 110.) A review of the Ninth Circuit docket 2 | shows that no such application has been filed with the Ninth Circuit, however, the matter is set to 3 | proceed to a telephonic mediation under the pilot Mediation Program of the Ninth Circuit on 4 | August 19, 2022. 5 Plaintiffs were never granted in forma pauperis status in this removed action, and thus 6 | the Court has not been asked by the Ninth Circuit to certify such status for the appeal. Rather, 7 | the Ninth Circuit has directed the parties to file such application directly with the Ninth Circuit. 8 | Additionally, the application filed with this Court is procedurally insufficient as it was only 9 | completed by Brown, and both Brown and Morgan must qualify for in forma pauperis status. 10 | See Anderson y. California, No. 3:10-cv-02216-MMA (AJB), 2010 WL 4316996, at *1 (S.D. 11 | Cal. Oct. 27, 2010). 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Carolyn Brown’s application proceed 13 | in forma pauperis (ECF No. 109) is DENIED, and Plaintiffs are directed to submit an application 14 | to proceed in forma pauperis with the Ninth Circuit in compliance with the April 22, 2022 order. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 17 | Dated: _July 7, 2022 _ OO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28