ORDER

WILLIAM Q. HAYES, District Judge.

The matter before the Court is the Motion for Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis filed by Petitioner Francisco J. Martinez. (ECF No. 22).

On August 31, 2017, Petitioner commenced this action by filing a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (ECF No. 1). On September 1, 2017, Petitioner filed an amended petition with his signature. (ECF No. 2). Petitioner challenges his San Diego Superior Court conviction for two counts of commodities fraud based on misrepresentations Petitioner made while participating in a forex trading scheme. Petitioner is now on probation. Petitioner challenges his state court conviction, affirmed by the California Court of Appeal, on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to convict, that an erroneous jury instruction deprived him of due process, and that the trial court erred when it refused to hear his new trial motion on thirteenth juror grounds.

On April 12, 2019, the Court denied the petition and granted a certificate of appealability with respect to Petitioner's claims based on the conclusions of the California Court of Appeal regarding sufficiency of the evidence and harmless error. (ECF No. 19). A Clerk's Judgment was issued. (ECF No. 20).

On April 17, 2019, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (ECF No. 21), a motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (ECF No. 22) supported by a financial affidavit (ECF No. 23).

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has stated, "Parties filing actions including appeals to this court are required to pay a filing fee. . . . An action may proceed despite failure to pay the filing fees only if the party is granted IFP status." Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). "[A]ny court of the United States may authorize the commencement . . . of any suit . . . or appeal therein, without prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement . .. that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).

Fed. R. App. P. 24. "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); accord Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3)(A). Good faith exists if "at least one issue or claim is found to be non-frivolous." Hooker v. Am. Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002). An action is "frivolous" for purposes of § 1915 if it "lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see also Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1984).

In support of the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, Petitioner provides the declaration of Charles Khoury, counsel for Petitioner for the district court proceedings. (ECF No. 22 at 2). The declaration states that "Petitioner has been forced to drive for Uber in the last month and has no funds or prospects of funds to pay for any expenses of this proceeding," and that Petitioner has not paid Khoury. Id. In addition, Petitioner provides a financial affidavit that was signed on February 25, 2019. (ECF No. 23). The affidavit states that Petitioner earns $1,500 per month driving for Uber, that Petitioner's spouse earns $2,000 per month, and that Petitioner's mother-in-law is a dependent. The affidavit lists monthly expenses amounting to $2,150. Id. The Court has granted a certificate of appealability with respect to Petitioner's claims based on the conclusions of the California Court of Appeal regarding sufficiency of the evidence and harmless error. A Clerk's Judgment was issued.

The Court finds the record provides adequate grounds to grant Petitioner's motion to appeal in forma pauperis. See Fed. R. App. P. 24. Petitioner is entitled to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.