Montin v. Moore et al

Filing 97

ORDER that plaintiff's motion for leave to appeal IFP 95 is granted. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (KLF)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA JOHN MAXWELL MONTIN, Plaintiff, v. Y. SCOTT MOORE, et al., Plaintiffs. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 4:14CV3142 ORDER This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (“IFP”)(Filing No. 95). The plaintiff has not previously been granted leave to proceed IFP in this matter. After reviewing the motion and the applicable law, the Court will grant the plaintiff’s motion for leave to appeal IFP. As set forth in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(1): 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. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1). In light of the information provided by the plaintiff in his motion for leave to appeal IFP (Filing No. 95), and pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a), the Court concludes that the plaintiff may proceed IFP on appeal. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for leave to appeal IFP (Filing No. 95) is granted. DATED this 3rd day of March, 2016. BY THE COURT: /s/ Lyle E. Strom ____________________________ LYLE E. STROM, Senior Judge United States District Court -2-

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?