IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 13, 2012
DONALD WILLIAM TARNAWA, PETITIONER,
RICHARD IVES, RESPONDENT.
Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and is before the undersigned pursuant to the parties' consent. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; see also E.D. Cal. Local Rules, Appx. A, at (k)(3).
Judgment was entered in this case on March 18, 2011, and this matter is currently on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On November 21, 2011, petitioner filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. The court file reflects that petitioner paid the filing fee for this action.
Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that a party to a district court action who desires to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal must file a motion in the district court which:
(A) shows in the detail prescribed by Form 4 of the Appendix of Forms the party's inability to pay or to give security for fees and costs;
(B) claims an entitlement to redress; and
(C) states the issues that the party intends to present on appeal.
Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1). On November 21, 2011, petitioner filed the appropriate affidavit which demonstrates his inability to pay or to give security for fees and costs. In his April 15, 2011 request for reconsideration, which this court denied, petitioner claimed entitlement to redress and described the issues he intended to present on appeal. Petitioner has complied with the requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 24(a) and there is no indication petitioner is proceeding in bad faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) (providing appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis where appeal "is not taken in good faith"); see, e.g., Brittain v. Mayberg, 286 Fed. App'x 444, 444-45 (9th Cir. 2008) (granting habeas petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, even though certificate of appealability had been denied and "questions raised [on] appeal [were] so insubstantial as to not require further argument").
Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's November 21, 2011, request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is granted.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.