Sameer v. Right Moves 4U et al

Filing 102

ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's 99 Motion for Permission to Appeal In Forma Pauperis, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 6/18/18. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MADHU SAMEER,
Plaintiff,

12
v.
13
14

THE RIGHT MOVE 4 U, et al.,

Case No. 1:17-cv-00886-AWI-EPG
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL IN FORMA
PAUPERIS
(ECF No. 99)

Defendant.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Madhu Sameer, proceeding pro se, has moved for permission to appeal in forma pauperis
(ECF No. 99).
Permitting litigants to proceed in forma pauperis is a privilege, not a right. Franklin v.
Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1231 (9th Cir. 1984); Williams v. Field, 394 F.2d 329, 332 (9th Cir.
1968). A party seeking to appeal in forma pauperis (“IFP”) who was not previously granted IFP
status in the district-court action must file an IFP motion in the district court that (1) shows “the
party’s inability to pay or to give security for fees and costs”; (2) “claims an entitlement to
redress”; and (3) “states the issues the party intends to present on appeal.” Fed. R. App. P.

23
24(a)(1). Further, a motion to appeal IFP can be granted only if the appeal is taken in good faith.
24
25
26
27

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). The good faith requirement is satisfied if the appellant seeks review
of any issue that is not frivolous. Gardner v. Pogue, 558 F.2d 548, 550-51 (9th Cir. 1977) (citing
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). An action is frivolous “where it lacks an
arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).

28
1

1

Here, Plaintiff has filed a motion and supporting documents showing her inability to pay

2

or give security for fees and costs, claiming her entitlement to redress, and stating the issues she

3

intends to present on appeal. (ECF No. 99.) Plaintiff lists the following issues she intends to raise

4

on appeal:

5

•

6

•

7
8
9

•
•

Split between the Trial Court’s decision and Supreme Court settled law related to rights of
pro se litigants and responsibilities of the Judges to ensure those rights are not violated.
Conflict between Rule 8 – requiring a short statement – and Rule 9 requiring that fraud be
plead with specificity and in detail.
Conflict with settled law that states complaints must be resolved on merits of the case.
Due process violation, abuse of discretion.

(ECF No. 99 at 2.)
At the heart of Plaintiff’s issues is her claim that the district court should have provided

10
11

her more clear instructions on what was needed to amend her complaint to meet the criteria

12

required under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 9 and/or should have dismissed her

13

amended complaint without prejudice and with leave to amend. The district court had previously

14
15
16

allowed Plaintiff to amend her complaint, and the court’s dismissal was of Plaintiff’s third
amended complaint. However, the district court had issued only one previous order in which
Plaintiff’s complaint was subjected to review under Rule 8 (ECF No. 87 at 7-9).
Under these circumstances, this Court finds that Plaintiff’s appeal is not frivolous and that

17
18

Plaintiff’s appeal is accordingly taken in good faith.
Accordingly, this Court grants Plaintiff permission to appeal in forma pauperis (ECF No.

19
99).
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

Dated:

June 18, 2018

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2