In Re: MARTHA A. AKERS
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 1/30/13. (ms, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MARTHA A. AKERS,
Martha A. Akers,
Bankr. No. 07-662
Civil Action No. 12-1137 (JEB)
In a Memorandum Opinion issued on January 8, 2013, this Court denied Appellant’s
Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in her latest appeal of an adverse decision in the
Bankruptcy Court. See ECF No. 7. The Court ordered Appellant, a prolific pro se filer, that her
appeal would be dismissed unless she paid the required fees by January 28. Id. at 7. Instead of
doing so, she has simply filed another IFP Motion. In fact, this IFP Motion is identical to one
she filed in Case No. 11-674, which this Court denied on January 29. See In re: Akers, No. 11674, ECF No. 19 (Order). The current one will be denied for the same reasons and the appeal
As the Court noted in denying her prior IFP Motion in this case, Appellant owns $1.5
million in real property, which is apparently unencumbered. She thus hardly qualifies for IFP
status. See Jan. 8 Order at 4-5. In addition, the Court mentioned the lack of merit to this appeal
and the Bankruptcy Court’s certification that it had not been taken in good faith. Id. at 6. In her
current IFP Motion, she now claims property assets of $2.5 million, even more than in her
original Motion. See Aff. at 3. The reasons for denial here are thus even stronger than
previously. In any event, the IFP Motion is identical to the one the Court has just ruled on in No.
11-674, and it will deny this Motion for all the reasons stated in that Memorandum Opinion and
Order. See In re: Akers, No. 11-674, ECF No. 19 (Order). The grounds set forth in that Order
are thus expressly incorporated here.
An Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
JAMES E. BOASBERG
United States District Judge
DATE: Jan. 30, 2013
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?