Mondragon v. Martell
ORDER denying 30 Petitioner's Motion to Proceed IFP, signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr., on 4/6/11. (Kastilahn, A)
(HC) Mondragon v. Martell
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Fed. R. App. 24(a)(1). Petitioner's motion adequately describes his inability to pay. However, petitioner's motion claims neither an entitlement to redress nor states the issues that petitioner intends to appeal. However, on February 28, 2011 petitioner filed a notice of appeal addressing these matters. The court takes judicial notice of the notice of appeal and finds that petitioner's 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LARRY MONDRAGON, Petitioner, vs. MICHAEL MARTELL, Respondent. / Petitioner has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Fed. R. App. 24(a)(1) sets forth the requirements for applications to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal: The party must attach an affidavit that: (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. ORDER No. 2: 10-cv-0362 GEB KJN P
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is well supported. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (Dkt. No. 30) is granted. Dated: April 6, 2011
GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge
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?