Taylor v. Leu et al

Filing 85

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL; FORM 4 re 84 - Signed by JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 10/18/2016. Motion terminated: 84 MOTION for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis filed by Sar ah Margaret Taylor. "The Clerk of Court is ordered to (1) notify the parties and the Ninth Circuit of the denial of Taylor's request to proceed in forma pauperis ; and (2) send a copy of this order to Tayl or via e-mail." (Attachments: # 1 Form 4) (emt, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Sarah Margaret Taylor served via e-mail at [e-mail] and by first class mail at the address of record on October 18, 2016. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals served electronically, via Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) on October 18, 2016.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
SARAH MARGARET TAYLOR,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
LESTER K LEU; ANDREW LEE; LEU )
OKUDA & DOI;
)
)
PITE DUNCAN, LLP; ANNA T.
)
VALLIENTE; DAVID E.
)
McALLESTER;
)
)
CHRISTIAN FENTON;
)
)
SUSAN FENTON;
)
)
STATE OF HAWAII; THIRD
)
CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE
)
DISTRICT OF HAWAII;
)
)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT )
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII;
)
)
WELLS FARGO, NA, aka
)
AMERICA’S SERVICING COMPANY; )
)
ASSURANT SPECIALTY PROPERTY, )
aka WELLS FARGO NA AS STORM
)
INSURER;
)
)
US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION )
AS TRUSTEE FOR STRUCTURED
)
ASSET SECURITIES CORPORATION )
MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH
)
CERTIFICATE, SERIES 2006-NC1 )
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________ )

CIVIL NO. 15-00265 SOM/KSC

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON
APPEAL; FORM 4

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL

This action arose out of a state-court foreclosure of
Plaintiff Sarah Margaret Taylor’s mortgage.

See 3CC 14-1-000289.

That state-court foreclosure gave rise to two separate federal
cases.

First, on January 16, 2015, Taylor removed the state-

court foreclosure action to this court.
Civ. No. 15-00018 DKW/KSC.

See Notice of Removal,

On March 10, 2015, Judge Derrick

Watson adopted findings and a recommendation to remand the
foreclosure proceedings to state court.
DKW/KSC, ECF No. 15.

See Civ. No. 15-00018

Second, Taylor filed the present case,

which lists claims that relate to the foreclosure.
On September 9, 2016, this judge dismissed the federal
claims asserted in Taylor’s Amended Complaint and declined to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law
claims.

See ECF No. 81.

Judgment was entered the same day.

See

ECF No. 82.
On October 12, 2016, Taylor filed a Notice of Appeal
and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
84.

See ECF No.

Although Taylor’s Notice of Appeal also lists the case

numbers for the state-court action and the remand of that removed
case by Judge Watson, this order is limited to the case before
this judge, Civil No. 15-00265 SOM/KSC.

Taylor’s notice of

appeal should not include the state-court action.

A final state-

court order or judgment may not be appealed to a federal court.
See Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 900-02 (9th Cir. 2003).

2

Judge Watson has already denied Taylor’s request to proceed in
forma pauperis in Civil No. 15-00018 DKW/KSC.
00018 DKW/KSC, ECF No. 24.

See Civ. No. 15-

The court here denies Taylor’s

request to proceed in forma pauperis on her appeal in this
separate action.
Rule 24(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure states:
Except as stated in Rule 24(a)(3), a party to
a district-court action who desires to appeal
in forma pauperis must file a motion in the
district court. The party must attach an
affidavit that:
(A) shows in the detail prescribed by Form 4
of the Appendix of Forms the party’s
inability to pay or to give security for fees
and costs;
(B) claims an entitlement to redress; and
(C) states the issues that the party intends
to present on appeal.
Rule 24(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure provides:
A party who was permitted to proceed in forma
pauperis in the district-court action, or who
was determined to be financially unable to
obtain an adequate defense in a criminal
case, may proceed on appeal in forma pauperis
without further authorization, unless:
(A) the district court--before or after the
notice of appeal is filed--certifies that the
appeal is not taken in good faith or finds
that the party is not otherwise entitled to
proceed in forma pauperis and states in
writing its reasons for the certification or
finding; or
3

(B) a statute provides otherwise.
Taylor paid this court’s filing fee and did not seek leave to
proceed in forma pauperis in the district court.

See ECF No. 3.

This court denies Taylor’s request to proceed in forma
pauperis on appeal without prejudice because she failed to comply
with the requirements of Rule 24(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure.

Taylor has not completed Form 4 or provided

an affidavit with the detail necessary to demonstrate her
inability to pay or give security for fees and costs.

Taylor’s

request is devoid of any information concerning her income,
assets, debts, or any other relevant information.

The court is

therefore unable to adequately assess Taylor’s ability to pay the
requisite fees.

Moreover, Taylor neither claims an entitlement

to redress nor states the issues she intends to present on
appeal.
In case Taylor wishes to file another request to
proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, the court attaches to this
order a copy of Form 4.
The Clerk of Court is ordered to (1) notify the parties
and the Ninth Circuit of the denial of Taylor’s request to
proceed in forma pauperis; and (2) send a copy of this order to
Taylor via e-mail.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, October 18, 2016.

/s/ Susan Oki Mollway
Susan Oki Mollway
United States District Judge
Taylor v. Leu, et al., Civil No. 15-00265 SOM/KSC; ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL

5