ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(ECF No. 95).

JANIS L. SAMMARTINO, District Judge.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs Steven H. Lucore, Sr. and Judy L. Lucore's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, (ECF No 95). Plaintiffs previously paid the district court filing fee, (see ECF No. 1), but now seek to appeal final judgment in their case without prepaying the appellate filing fee.

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24 states that a petitioner may "proceed on appeal in forma pauperis without further authorization," unless the district court "certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith or finds that the party is not otherwise entitled to proceed in forma pauperis," or a statute provides otherwise. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3). The Ninth Circuit has construed "not taken in good faith" to mean frivolous. See Hooker v. Am. Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002) (stating that "[i]f at least one issue or claim is found to be non-frivolous, leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal must be granted for the case as a whole"). An issue is "frivolous" if it has "no arguable basis in fact or law." See O'Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1990) (internal citation and quotation omitted).

Here, Plaintiffs submit an application stating that Mr. Lucore is currently unemployed and has no other income beyond $300 a month provided his son. (ECF No. 94, at 1.) He further states that he is currently disabled, is in the process of applying for social security, and on Medi-Cal. (Id.) Mr. Lucore's wife is dependent on him and they have monthly expenses of at least $875. (See id. at 2.)

The Court finds that an appeal would not be frivolous and that Plaintiffs meet the requirements to proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion, (ECF No. 95).

IT IS SO ORDERED.