Napoles et al v. Rogers et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RON NAPOLES, LAURINE NAPOLES,
RICK NAPOLES, JAMES NAPOLES,
MARK NAPOLES, DEBRA WILLIAMS,
and WADE WILLIAMS,
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
This court granted respondents’ motions to dismiss on July 10, 2017. (Doc. No. 37.)
Petitioner Ron Napoles1 filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal on August 8,
2017. (Doc. No. 40.) Petitioners did not proceed in the district court in forma pauperis, but
instead paid the filing fee. Federal law permits “any court of the United States [to] . . . authorize
the commencement . . . of any . . . appeal . . . without prepayment of fees or security therefor,” if
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.
the petitioner provides a statement of the assets they possess and can show they are unable to pay
the filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). “[A] party to a district-court action who desires to appeal in
forma pauperis must file a motion in the district court.” Fed. R. App. Proc. 24(a)(1). The party
must include an affidavit with their filing that shows their inability to pay, claims an entitlement
to redress, and states the issues the party intends to present on appeal. Fed. R. App. Proc.
24(a)(1)(A)–(C). Inability to pay does not require that a petitioner “be absolutely destitute to
enjoy the benefit of the statute.” Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339
(1948). Rather, “an affidavit is sufficient which states that one cannot because of his poverty pay
or give security for the costs and still be able to provide himself and dependents with the
necessities of life.” Id. (internal quotations and amendments omitted); see also Rowland v. Cal.
Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 203 (1993).
Petitioner’s affidavit in support of his application indicates that he is employed, receives
approximately $1,500 in wages every two weeks and owns a vehicle worth approximately
$10,000. Moreover, petitioner reports that he has approximately $20,000 in cash, checking, or
savings accounts. (Doc. No. 40 at 2.) The filing fee for a notice of appeal in this case is $505.
See U.S. Dist. Ct., E. Dist. Cal., Fee Schedule, http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm
/attorney-info/fee-schedule/ (last visited Sept. 6, 2017). Petitioner’s affidavit does not state he
would be unable to provide himself or his dependents2 with the necessities of life, and reveals that
he has both earnings and assets from which to pay this filing fee. Rowland, 506 U.S. at 203.
Finally, petitioner does not indicate what issues he intends to present on appeal. (See Doc. Nos.
39, 40.) The court therefore denies petitioner Ron Napoles application for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis (Doc. No. 40) on appeal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
September 6, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The affidavit indicates petitioner does not have any dependents. (See Doc. No. 40 at 2.)
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?