IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 9, 2012
JUAN R. LOPEZ, PETITIONER,
KATHLEEN L. DICKINSON, RESPONDENT.
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner paid the $5.00 filing fee on January 29, 2010. On July 18, 2011, judgment was entered in this case following the Honorable John A. Mendez's adoption in full of the undersigned's findings and recommendations recommending that petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus be denied. Petitioner has filed a notice of appeal and seeks to proceed in forma pauperis before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
A party who was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in the district court may proceed in forma pauperis on appeal without further authorization unless the district court certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3). In this case, petitioner paid the filing fee and did not proceed in this court in forma pauperis. Thus, petitioner is not automatically entitled to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
Rule 24(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure states that a party who desires to appeal in forma pauperis must file a motion in the district court and attach to that motion a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis, along with the issues the party intends to present on appeal. Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by Rule 24(a)(1). He has also submitted a completed motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's January 27, 2012 request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is granted.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.