BROWN v. LION SHARE INVESTMENTS, LLC, 17-cv-05531-EMC. (2017)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20171102b07
Visitors: 2
Filed: Oct. 31, 2017
Latest Update: Oct. 31, 2017
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS Docket No. 19 EDWARD M. CHEN , District Judge . Plaintiff has applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on her appeal to the Ninth Circuit from this Court's order denying her application for a stay of a bankruptcy court order pending her appeal. "An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith." 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3). The Ninth Circuit ha
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS Docket No. 19 EDWARD M. CHEN , District Judge . Plaintiff has applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on her appeal to the Ninth Circuit from this Court's order denying her application for a stay of a bankruptcy court order pending her appeal. "An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith." 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3). The Ninth Circuit has..
More
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS Docket No. 19
EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge.
Plaintiff has applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on her appeal to the Ninth Circuit from this Court's order denying her application for a stay of a bankruptcy court order pending her appeal. "An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). The Ninth Circuit has held that "if at least one issue or claim is found to be non-frivolous, leave to proceed in forma pauperis must be granted for the case as a whole." Hooker v. American Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002).
Plaintiff appears to meet the financial requirements for in forma pauperis status. The Court nevertheless DENIES her request because her appeal does not present a non-frivolous claim, for the same reasons stated in the Court's order of denial. See Docket No. 13; In re Perl, 811 F.3d 1120, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2016) (under California law, "no occupant of the premises retains any possessory interest of any kind following service of the writ of possession").
This disposes of Docket No. 19.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
