Greenfield v. Gardner
Filing
2
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER by Christina J Greenfield. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motions to appeal in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (Dkt. 1 in 2:21-mc-00564-BLW & Dkt. 1 in 2:21-mc-00593-BLW) are DENIED. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (kt)
Case 2:21-mc-00593-BLW Document 2 Filed 08/05/21 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
CHRISTINA GREENFIELD,
Case Nos. 2:21-mc-00564-BLW
2:21-mc-00593-BLW
Appellant,
Bk. No.
19-20785-NGH
v.
BAP Nos. ID-21-1095
ID-21-1096
DAVID P. GARDNER, Chapter 7 Trustee,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO
APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Appellee.
Before the Court are Christina Greenfield’s motions to appeal in forma pauperis
from orders issued by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Idaho. See
Dkt. 1 in 2:21-mc-00564-BLW; Dkt. 1 in 2:21-mc-00593-BLW. For the foregoing
reasons, the motions will be denied.
BACKGROUND
Ms. Greenfield filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2019. Chapter 7 trustee David
Gardner filed motions for an order approving the sale of real property and an application
for compensation of realtor, which Ms. Greenfield opposed. The Bankruptcy Court
granted Mr. Gardner’s motions. Ms. Greenfield appealed and asked the Bankruptcy Court
for fee waivers and in forma pauperis status, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1930.
See Dkt. 1-2 in 2:21-mc-00564-BLW.
The Bankruptcy Court also overruled Ms. Greenfield’s objection to a proof of
claim filed by Eric and Rosalynd Wurmlinger. On June 28, 2021, Ms. Greenfield
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING
MOTIONS TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS - 1
Case 2:21-mc-00593-BLW Document 2 Filed 08/05/21 Page 2 of 3
appealed that order and again requested in forma pauperis status. See Dkt. 1-1 in 2:21mc-00593-BLW.
In both cases, the Bankruptcy Court denied the requests for waiver under § 1930
and referred the § 1915 in forma pauperis requests to this Court. See Dkt. 1-2 & 1-3 in
2:21-mc-00564-BLW; Dkt. 1-1 & 1-2 in 2:21-mc-00593-BLW. Ms. Greenfield also
requested in forma pauperis status in the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel,
which referred her application to this Court as well. See Dkt. 2 in 2:21-mc-00564-BLW.
DISCUSSION
The in forma pauperis statute permits a court of the United States to “authorize the
commencement, prosecution, or defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or
criminal, or appeal therein, without prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a person
who submits an affidavit [showing an inability to pay].” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
However, even if a party is unable to pay the fee, an appeal may not be taken in forma
pauperis if the court certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(3). “[T]o [appeal] in bad faith means merely to [appeal] on the basis of a
frivolous claim, which is to say a claim that no reasonable person could suppose to have
any merit.” Lee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025, 1026 (7th Cir. 2000).
Having reviewed the record surrounding the bankruptcy proceedings, this Court
finds that Ms. Greenfield’s appeals are not taken in good faith. Therefore, regardless of
her ability to pay, she is not entitled to in forma pauperis status on appeal.
The Bankruptcy Court overruled Ms. Greenfield’s objections both on the merits
and for lack of standing. Debtors lack appellate standing when they do not face an
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING
MOTIONS TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS - 2
Case 2:21-mc-00593-BLW Document 2 Filed 08/05/21 Page 3 of 3
adverse and pecuniary effect. An-Tze Cheng v. K&S Diversified Invs. (In re Cheng), 308
B.R. 448, 454 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2004) aff’d, 160 F. App’x 644 (9th Cir. 2005). Ms.
Greenfield has failed to present any evidence showing a reasonable possibility that the
sale would result in a surplus in which she would have any pecuniary interest. Thus, she
cannot show any injury from the Bankruptcy Court’s orders. See id. (“A debtor, in its
individual capacity, lacks standing to object unless it demonstrates that it would be
‘injured in fact’ by the allowance of the claim.”); compare In re Pena, 974 F.3d 934, 938
(9th Cir. 2020) (“The fact that [the debtor’s] Chapter 7 estate did not result in a surplus
does not address his central claim here: that the unclaimed funds are not part of the estate
because they were abandoned by the trustee.”). Therefore, Ms. Greenfield lacks standing
to appeal.
The law is clear on the standing question, and Ms. Greenfield’s appeals are plainly
without merit. Accordingly, this Court finds that the appeals are not taken in good faith.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions to appeal in forma pauperis under 28
U.S.C. § 1915 (Dkt. 1 in 2:21-mc-00564-BLW & Dkt. 1 in 2:21-mc-00593-BLW) are
DENIED.
DATED: August 5, 2021
_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
U.S. District Court Judge
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING
MOTIONS TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS - 3
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?