McDowell et al v. State of California et al

Filing 68

ORDER by Judge Charles R. Breyer denying 61 Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting 65 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. (crblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/24/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

ORDER (1) GRANTING
APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS; (2) DENYING
MOTION FOR CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY

Plaintiff-Appellants,

13
14

No. C 11-02569 CRB

FRANK AND DEBORAH MCDOWELL,

v.
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

15

Defendant-Appellee.

/

16

On January 6, 2012, Plaintiff-Appellants filed with this Court an Application to

17
18

Proceed In Forma Pauperis, in conjunction with his Notice of Appeal to the United States

19

Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit. Dkt. 65. The Ninth Circuit will waive its filing fee

20

when an appellant has obtained in forma pauperis status from the district court. See 9th Cir.

21

R. 3-1; Fed. R. App. P. 24(a). A court may authorize a plaintiff to prosecute an action in

22

federal court without prepayment of fees or security if the plaintiff submits an affidavit

23

showing that he or she is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor. See 28 U.S.C. §

24

1915(a).
Plaintiff-Appellants have submitted the required documentation, and it appears that

25
26

because of Plaintiff-Appellants’ poverty, they are unable to pay the costs of this action or to

27

give security. Accordingly, the Application is GRANTED.

28

//

1

Plaintiff-Appellants also filed a Motion for Certificate of Appealability pursuant to 28

2

U.S.C. §§ 2254 or 2255 on January 6, 2012. Dkt. 65. Plaintiff-Appellants’ case does not

3

relate to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254 or 2255, however, and so no certificate of appealability is

4

necessary. The Motion is DENIED.  

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7
8

CHARLES R. BREYER

Dated: January 24, 2012

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

G:\CRBALL\2011\2569\order re IFP.wpd

2