Hurt v. 50 States and the City of Washington et al

Filing 31

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL by Hon. William Alsup denying 30 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis.(whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/24/2013)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
8

TYRONE HURT,

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
ON APPEAL

50 States and the City of Washington,
All State Legislatures of the 50 States,
and U.S. Department of Justice,
Defendants.
/

14
15

No. C 12-02728 WHA

Pro se plaintiff Tyrone Hurt has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis on

16

appeal. Plaintiff seeks to appeal this Court’s order of January 3, 2013, denying his motion for

17

leave to file an amended complaint. The ground for appeal appears to be that plaintiff contends

18

the order was inconsistent with the United States Constitution. Federal Rule of Appellate

19

Procedure 24(a) provides that a party who desires to appeal a district court order in forma

20

pauperis must file a motion requesting such relief in the district court. The Rule provides that

21

the party must attach an affidavit that:

22
23
24

(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.

25

Plaintiff’s motion does not include sufficient detail regarding plaintiff’s ability to pay. Plaintiff’s

26

conclusory statement that “because of [his] poverty,” he cannot pay the filing fee and that he

27

believes he is entitled to the relief he seeks is insufficient. Nor does plaintiff state the issues he

28

intends to present on appeal.

1

Moreover, even if plaintiff had complied with the requirements of the rule, the appeal is

2

frivolous. Plaintiff’s hand-written complaint was dismissed in part because it was largely

3

illegible. He then filed a hand-written motion entitled “amendment to the complaint.” The

4

motion did not state a single claim for relief nor plead any relevant facts that could reasonably be

5

tied to any claim for relief. The motion for leave to amend the complaint was therefore denied.

6

Plaintiff’s appeal of the order denying his motion for leave to file an amended complaint is

7

frivolous and not taken in good faith.

8

Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is DENIED.

9
IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

Dated: January 24, 2013.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2