Missud v. State of California et al

Filing 99

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Denying 98 Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/13/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 PATRICK MISSUD, 9 Plaintiff, v. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 No. C-12-5468 EMC STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 12 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL Defendants. ___________________________________/ (Docket No. 98) 13 14 15 On February 5, 2013, this Court issued an order granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss, 16 and dismissing the complaint with prejudice. Docket No. 70. This Court subsequently denied two 17 motions for reconsideration. Docket Nos. 81, 85. Plaintiff appealed on February 25, 2013. Docket 18 No. 87. Plaintiff has now submitted an application to this Court for leave to proceed in forma 19 pauperis on appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Docket No. 98; Fed. R. App. P. 24(a). 20 When presented with an application to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must first 21 determine if the applicant satisfies the economic eligibility requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See 22 Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1226 n.5 (9th Cir. 1984). Section 1915(a) does not require an 23 applicant to demonstrate absolute destitution. See McCone v. Holiday Inn Convention Ctr., 797 F.2d 24 853, 854 (10th Cir. 1982) (citing Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., 335 U.S. 331, 339 25 (1948)). 26 Plaintiff represents that he is currently a “pro-bono attorney who bankrolls others’ cases” and 27 that he thus has a negative net income. He notes that he has been “cashing-in stock to maintain my 28 many cases.” He has not worked for wages since 2009, when he made $3000 per month as a general 1 contractor. His wife is employed and makes $8000 per month. Plaintiff has a bank account with 2 approximately $200 in it, and he owns a number of cars and trucks, as well as motorcycles worth 3 approximately $10,000. Plaintiff lists just over $5,500 in monthly expenses for rent, utilities, food, 4 clothing, credit card bills, pet food, and pet medication. He additionally has approximately $85,000 5 in judgments against him from previous lawsuits. Though Plaintiff’s debts and monthly expenses 6 are not insignificant, his wife’s monthly income is substantial, and exceeds the monthly expenses 7 Plaintiff lists by more than two thousand dollars. Given this information, Plaintiff’s application to 8 proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. certain documents with this Court since filing his appeal. Docket Nos. 90-93, 96-97. As an appeal 11 For the Northern District of California Additionally, Plaintiff has continued to file various letters and requests for judicial notice of 10 United States District Court 9 is pending in this matter, to the extent Plaintiff intends to use such requests to move this Court for 12 relief of some kind, this Court does not have the authority to grant such a motion absent a remand 13 for the Court of Appeals. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1(a). Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to comply with 14 the Local Rules regarding written requests to the Court. Civil Local Rule 7-1, 7-9. Accordingly, this 15 Court declines to consider these filings. 16 Plaintiff is directed to comply with the Local Rules in future filings with this Court. Absent 17 further order from this Court, the Court will not consider any future filings from Plaintiff while the 18 case is on appeal. 19 This order disposes of Docket Nos. 90-93, 96-98. 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 Dated: March 13, 2013 24 _________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States District Judge 25 26 27 28 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?