Pulley v. Paramo et al

Filing 60

ORDER Granting Petitioner's 58 Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis on Appeal. It is ordered that the Court concludes that petitioner's application demonstrates he is unable to pay the requisite fees and costs on appeal. Accordingly, the Court grants petitioner's motion to proceed IFP on appeal. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 5/22/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(dxj)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBERT G. PULLEY,

Case No.: 14-CV-2034 JLS (MDD)
Petitioner,

12
13
14

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S
MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS ON APPEAL

v.
D. PARAMO, Warden, et al.,
Respondents.

15

(ECF No. 58)

16
17

Presently before the Court is Petitioner Robert G. Pulley’s Motion for Leave to

18

Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) on Appeal. (ECF No. 58.) Federal Rule of Appellate

19

Procedure 24(a)(1)1 allows a plaintiff to move for IFP status on appeal so long as the

20

plaintiff attaches an affidavit of his inability to pay, claims an entitlement to redress, and

21

states the issues he intends to present on appeal. The determination of whether a plaintiff

22

is indigent, and thus unable to pay the filing fee, falls within the district court’s discretion.

23

Cal. Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991), reversed on other

24

grounds, 506 U.S. 194 (1993) (“Section 1915 typically requires the reviewing court to

25

///

26
27
28

1

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3), which provides that a party who has already been granted
IFP status may file an appeal as such without further authorization, is inapplicable because Petitioner paid
the requisite filing fee and the Court thus denied as moot his motion to proceed IFP. (See ECF No. 18.)
1
14-CV-2034 JLS (MDD)

1

exercise its sound discretion in determining whether the affiant has satisfied the statute’s

2

requirement of indigency.”).

3

In the present case, Petitioner has submitted an affidavit demonstrating that he has

4

roughly $2.00 in his account, and that his average monthly balance in the past six months

5

was $2.78. (ECF No. 57-1, at 4.) Additionally, the average monthly deposits to his account

6

over that same period was $28.42. (Id.) And Petitioner specifically appeals the Court’s

7

denial of his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (See ECF Nos. 54, 56, 57.) Given the

8

foregoing, the Court concludes that Petitioner’s application demonstrates he is unable to

9

pay the requisite fees and costs on appeal. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s

10
11
12

Motion to Proceed IFP on Appeal (ECF No. 58).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 22, 2017

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
14-CV-2034 JLS (MDD)