Napoles et al v. Rogers et al

Filing 42

ORDER DENYING In Forma Pauperis Status for Notice of Appeal re 40 signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/6/2017. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13

RON NAPOLES, LAURINE NAPOLES,
RICK NAPOLES, JAMES NAPOLES,
MARK NAPOLES, DEBRA WILLIAMS,
and WADE WILLIAMS,
Petitioner,

14
v.

15
16
17
18
19
20

No. 16-cv-01933-DAD-JLT

ORDER DENYING IN FORMA PAUPERIS
STATUS FOR NOTICE OF APPEAL
(Doc. No. 40)

DESTIN ROGERS, JEFF ROMERO,
BRIAN PONCHO, EARLEEN
WILLIAMS, and WILLIAM BILL VEGA,
in their individual and official capacities as
representative of the Bishop Paiute Tribal
Council; BISHOP PAIUTE TRIBAL
COUNCIL; and Tribal Court Judge BILL
KOCKENMEISTER, in his individual
official capacity,
Respondents.

21
22

This court granted respondents’ motions to dismiss on July 10, 2017. (Doc. No. 37.)

23

Petitioner Ron Napoles1 filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal on August 8,

24

2017. (Doc. No. 40.) Petitioners did not proceed in the district court in forma pauperis, but

25

instead paid the filing fee. Federal law permits “any court of the United States [to] . . . authorize

26

the commencement . . . of any . . . appeal . . . without prepayment of fees or security therefor,” if

27
28

1

There are multiple petitioners in this habeas case, but only petitioner Ron Napoles has filed this
motion or provided an affidavit in support of it.
1

1

the petitioner provides a statement of the assets they possess and can show they are unable to pay

2

the filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). “[A] party to a district-court action who desires to appeal in

3

forma pauperis must file a motion in the district court.” Fed. R. App. Proc. 24(a)(1). The party

4

must include an affidavit with their filing that shows their inability to pay, claims an entitlement

5

to redress, and states the issues the party intends to present on appeal. Fed. R. App. Proc.

6

24(a)(1)(A)–(C). Inability to pay does not require that a petitioner “be absolutely destitute to

7

enjoy the benefit of the statute.” Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339

8

(1948). Rather, “an affidavit is sufficient which states that one cannot because of his poverty pay

9

or give security for the costs and still be able to provide himself and dependents with the

10

necessities of life.” Id. (internal quotations and amendments omitted); see also Rowland v. Cal.

11

Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 203 (1993).

12

Petitioner’s affidavit in support of his application indicates that he is employed, receives

13

approximately $1,500 in wages every two weeks and owns a vehicle worth approximately

14

$10,000. Moreover, petitioner reports that he has approximately $20,000 in cash, checking, or

15

savings accounts. (Doc. No. 40 at 2.) The filing fee for a notice of appeal in this case is $505.

16

See U.S. Dist. Ct., E. Dist. Cal., Fee Schedule, http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm

17

/attorney-info/fee-schedule/ (last visited Sept. 6, 2017). Petitioner’s affidavit does not state he

18

would be unable to provide himself or his dependents2 with the necessities of life, and reveals that

19

he has both earnings and assets from which to pay this filing fee. Rowland, 506 U.S. at 203.

20

Finally, petitioner does not indicate what issues he intends to present on appeal. (See Doc. Nos.

21

39, 40.) The court therefore denies petitioner Ron Napoles application for leave to proceed in

22

forma pauperis (Doc. No. 40) on appeal.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

Dated:

September 6, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28

2

The affidavit indicates petitioner does not have any dependents. (See Doc. No. 40 at 2.)
2