Mora v. United States Trustee
Filing
4
ORDER DENYING 2 MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; DENYING 3 MOTION FOR CORRECTION. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 1/9/2013. (ejdlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/9/2013) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/9/2013: # 1 Certificate of Service) (ecg, COURT STAFF).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
SAN JOSE DIVISION
10
CASE NO. 5:12-mc-80280 EJD
11
ORDER DENYING APPELLANT’S
MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS; DENYING APPELLANT’S
MOTION FOR CORRECTION
BERNABE MORA
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
IN RE:
12
Debtor.
13
14
/
BERNABE MORA,
15
[Docket Item No(s). 2, 3]
Appellant(s),
16
17
v.
UNITED STATES TRUSTEE,
18
Appellee(s).
19
20
/
In this action originating in bankruptcy court, presently before the court are two matters: (1)
21
Appellant Bernabe Mora’s (“Appellant”) Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, and (2) Appellant’s
22
Motion for Correction of Erroneous Case Number. See Docket Item Nos. 2, 3. As this court
23
understands its, Appellant has appealed from the bankruptcy court’s order filed September 5, 2012,
24
which dismissed an adversary proceeding due to Appellant’s failure to comply with a prior order.
25
See Docket Item No. 1. Appellant applied for in forma pauperis status before the Bankruptcy
26
Appellate Panel (the “BAP”). Id. The BAP then transferred Appellant’s application to this court for
27
consideration. Id.
28
1
CASE NO. 5:12-mc-80280 EJD
ORDER DENYING APPELLANT’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; DENYING APPELLANT'S
MOTION FOR CORRECTION
1
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), the court “may authorize the commencement,
2
prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal, or appeal therein, without
3
prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a
4
statement of all assets such [person] prisoner possesses that the person is unable to pay such fees or
5
give security therefor.” District courts have broad discretion to grant or deny a motion to proceed in
6
forma pauperis in a civil action. O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616-17 (9th Cir. 1990). Indeed,
7
“[t]he right to proceed in forma pauperis is not an unqualified one.” Jefferson v. United States, 277
8
F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 1960). “It is a privilege, rather than a right.” Id.
Accompanying Motion for Permission to Appeal In Forma Pauperis” dated October 31, 2011 (the
11
For the Northern District of California
Here, Appellant has supported his motion with the following documents: (1) an “Affidavit
10
United States District Court
9
“2011 application”), and (2) an “Affidavit of Financial Status,” in which Plaintiff states he has
12
“reason to believe” that his 2011 application was previously approved by the district court in one of
13
two other cases also filed in this district, namely Mora v. Wachovia Mortgage FSB, Case No. 5:10-
14
cv-05951 JF, and Mora v. Litton Loan Servicing, Case No. 5:11-cv-02319 LHK.
15
The court has reviewed the other cases cited by Appellant and takes judicial notice of the
16
their respective district court and appellate dockets.1 The 2011 application was not filed in the
17
district court for either case. Thus, it does not appear the district court has made a determination on
18
the 2011 application as indicated by Appellant.
19
However, the court notes that in the Litton action,2 the following occurred: (1) on September
20
12, 2011, the Court of Appeals ordered Appellant to either file an in forma pauperis application, pay
21
the filing fee, or show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, (2) on
22
November 2, 2011, Appellant filed the 2011 application in the Court of Appeal, and (3) on
23
December 8, 2011, the Court of Appeals denied Appellant’s in forma pauperis application because it
24
25
26
27
1
Appellant also filed one other case against Litton Loan Servicing, 5:10-cv-02854 LHK, but
that case was dismissed well before the date on which Appellant signed the 2011 application. As
such, this earlier case does not appear to be the one referenced by Appellant in the “Affidavit of
Financial Status.”
2
28
The appellate case number is 11-17133.
2
CASE NO. 5:12-mc-80280 EJD
ORDER DENYING APPELLANT’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; DENYING APPELLANT'S
MOTION FOR CORRECTION
1
2
found that the appeal was frivolous and that Appellant was not indigent.
While this court is aware of its obligation to redetermine Appellant’s financial condition
3
under § 1915(a) despite his submission of a previous application (see Holmes v. Hardy, 852 F.2d
4
151, 153 (5th Cir. 1988)), the fact that the Court of Appeal found the 2011 application insufficient to
5
support in forma pauperis status is nonetheless compelling. In addition, the court cannot ignore that
6
Appellant’s current reliance on the 2011 application is not indicative of his present financial
7
circumstances, especially since Appellant did not a represent that the 2011 application is still
8
accurate in the instant motion. That circumstance alone is sufficient to deny Appellant’s motion.
9
But even assuming the 2011 is still accurate, the court would still find that Appellant is not indigent
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
after reviewing it anew and applying the standards required by § 1915(a).
Accordingly, Appellant’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Docket Item No. 2) is
12
DENIED. The Motion for Correction of Erroneous Case Number (Docket Item No. 3) is also
13
DENIED because the clerk’s assignment of a miscellaneous case number was not in error. The
14
appeal to the BAP from the bankruptcy court’s dismissal order did not arise from one of Appellant’s
15
other district court cases.
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
18
Dated: January 9, 2013
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
CASE NO. 5:12-mc-80280 EJD
ORDER DENYING APPELLANT’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; DENYING APPELLANT'S
MOTION FOR CORRECTION
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?