Filed: Jun. 19, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 19, 2018
Summary: ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF No. 99) ERICA P. GROSJEAN , Magistrate Judge . Madhu Sameer, proceeding pro se, has moved for permission to appeal in forma pauperis (ECF No. 99). Permitting litigants to proceed in forma pauperis is a privilege, not a right. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221 , 1231 (9th Cir. 1984); Williams v. Field, 394 F.2d 329 , 332 (9th Cir. 1968). A party seeking to appeal in forma pauperis ("IFP") who was
Summary: ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF No. 99) ERICA P. GROSJEAN , Magistrate Judge . Madhu Sameer, proceeding pro se, has moved for permission to appeal in forma pauperis (ECF No. 99). Permitting litigants to proceed in forma pauperis is a privilege, not a right. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221 , 1231 (9th Cir. 1984); Williams v. Field, 394 F.2d 329 , 332 (9th Cir. 1968). A party seeking to appeal in forma pauperis ("IFP") who was ..
More
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF No. 99)
ERICA P. GROSJEAN, Magistrate Judge.
Madhu Sameer, proceeding pro se, has moved for permission to appeal in forma pauperis (ECF No. 99).
Permitting litigants to proceed in forma pauperis is a privilege, not a right. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1231 (9th Cir. 1984); Williams v. Field, 394 F.2d 329, 332 (9th Cir. 1968). A party seeking to appeal in forma pauperis ("IFP") who was not previously granted IFP status in the district-court action must file an IFP motion in the district court that (1) shows "the party's inability to pay or to give security for fees and costs"; (2) "claims an entitlement to redress"; and (3) "states the issues the party intends to present on appeal." Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1). Further, a motion to appeal IFP can be granted only if the appeal is taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). The good faith requirement is satisfied if the appellant seeks review of any issue that is not frivolous. Gardner v. Pogue, 558 F.2d 548, 550-51 (9th Cir. 1977) (citing Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). An action is frivolous "where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
Here, Plaintiff has filed a motion and supporting documents showing her inability to pay or give security for fees and costs, claiming her entitlement to redress, and stating the issues she intends to present on appeal. (ECF No. 99.) Plaintiff lists the following issues she intends to raise on appeal:
• Split between the Trial Court's decision and Supreme Court settled law related to rights of pro se litigants and responsibilities of the Judges to ensure those rights are not violated.
• Conflict between Rule 8 — requiring a short statement — and Rule 9 requiring that fraud be plead with specificity and in detail.
• Conflict with settled law that states complaints must be resolved on merits of the case.
• Due process violation, abuse of discretion.
(ECF No. 99 at 2.)
At the heart of Plaintiff's issues is her claim that the district court should have provided her more clear instructions on what was needed to amend her complaint to meet the criteria required under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 9 and/or should have dismissed her amended complaint without prejudice and with leave to amend. The district court had previously allowed Plaintiff to amend her complaint, and the court's dismissal was of Plaintiff's third amended complaint. However, the district court had issued only one previous order in which Plaintiff's complaint was subjected to review under Rule 8 (ECF No. 87 at 7-9).
Under these circumstances, this Court finds that Plaintiff's appeal is not frivolous and that Plaintiff's appeal is accordingly taken in good faith.
Accordingly, this Court grants Plaintiff permission to appeal in forma pauperis (ECF No. 99).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
