Arnold v. Attorney General Department of Justice ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MARIE A ARNOLD, Case No. 19-cv-05147-SVK 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING APPLICATION 9 v. FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL 10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Re: Dkt. No. 51 11 Defendant. 12 Plaintiff Marie A. Arnold, proceeding pro se, has filed an application for leave to proceed 13 in forma pauperis (“IFP Application”) on appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Dkt. 51. 14 Plaintiff appeals this Court’s February 13, 2020 order in which the Court granted Defendant’s 15 motion to dismiss and dismissed Plaintiff’s first amended complaint without leave to amend. 16 Dkt. 48. 17 Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that “a party to a district- 18 court action who desires to appeal in forma pauperis must first file a motion in the district court.” 19 Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1). In support of the motion, the party must provide the district court with 20 an affidavit that: (a) shows the party’s inability to pay or to give security for the requisite fees and 21 costs; (b) claims an entitlement to redress; and (c) states the issues that the party intends to present 22 on appeal. Id. If the district court denies the motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, the 23 party may subsequently file a motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis in the Court of 24 Appeals. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5). 25 A party need not be completely destitute to be eligible for in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status. 26 Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948). The affidavit supporting 27 an IFP application is sufficient if it alleges facts showing that the plaintiff, because of poverty, 1 with “the necessities of life.” Jd. at 339. Though Plaintiff is currently unemployed, her monthly 2 || income from real property, child support, and disability payments is approximately $4,506.00. 3 Dkt. 51 at 2. Plaintiff also values her home at $250.00! and her vehicle at $6,900.00. Dkt. 51 at 4. 4 || Plaintiff’s monthly expenses, which include home mortgage payments, utilities, food, clothing, 5 medical expenses, transportation, and insurance payments, are valued at approximately $2,333.00. 6 || Dkt.51 at 6. This information indicates that Plaintiff has a monthly surplus of approximately 7 $2,173.00. From this information, the Court does not find that Plaintiff has demonstrated an 8 || inability to pay court costs and still be able to provide herself and her dependents with the 9 necessities of life. 10 Accordingly, Plaintiff's IFP Application is DENIED. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue her 11 appeal in forma pauperis, she may file a motion with the appellate court. 12 SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: February 28, 2020 Sycsm 15 SUSAN VAN KEULEN = 16 United States Magistrate Judge = 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ' As Plaintiff resides in Las Vegas, Nevada, this number must be in error. However, the Court does not speculate as to the value of the home for the purposes of this analysis.