Collum v. PayPal. INC

Filing 20

ORDER granting 19 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. Ordered by Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed/e-mailed to pro se party) (Copies mailed to USCA as directed) (TEL)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
BRIAN T. COLLUM,
Plaintiff,
v.
PAYPAL. INC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:11CV12

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Appeal in
forma pauperis. (Filing No. 19.) On May 27, 2011, the court dismissed Plaintiff’s
claims without prejudice and entered Judgment against him. (Filing Nos. 16 and 17.)
Plaintiff filed a timely Notice of Appeal of the court’s Judgment. (Filing No. 18.)
Plaintiff is a non-prisoner and has not previously been granted leave to proceed in
forma pauperis (“IFP”) in this matter.
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). The court has carefully reviewed the record and finds that
Plaintiff has substantially complied with Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1). Therefore,
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Appeal IFP is granted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Appeal IFP (filing no. 19) is granted.

2.
The Clerk of the court shall provide the Court of Appeals with a copy of
this Memorandum and Order.
DATED this 25th day of July, 2011.
BY THE COURT:
Richard G. Kopf
United States District Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The
U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend,
approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on
their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties
or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or
functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or
directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.
2