IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 26, 2009
GEORGE ROUNDS, PETITIONER,
MATTHEW CATE, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge
Pending before the court is petitioner's June 15, 2009, motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Because this action was removed from state court, petitioner had not previously been granted in forma pauperis status in this action.
Fed. R. App. P. 24 provides,
Except as stated in Rule 24(a)(3), a party to a district-court action who desires to appeal in forma pauperis must file a motion in the district court. The party must attach an affidavit that:
(A) shows in the detail prescribed by Form 4 of the appendix of Forms the party's in ability to pay or to give security for fees and costs;
(B) claims an entitled to redress; and
(C) states the issues that the party intends to present on appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1).
Petitioner's application does not comply with Rule 24(a)(1) because it does not contain an affidavit claiming an entitlement to redress nor a statement of the issues he intends to appeal.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (no. 15) is denied.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.