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)

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