Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02467/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02467-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 42:1983cvp Civil Rights (Personal Property)

---

-1- 17cv2467-MMA (KSC)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JOE EDWARD COLLINS, III,

Plaintiff,

v. 

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO DCSS, 

Defendant.

Case No.: 17cv2467-MMA (KSC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS ON APPEAL 

[Doc. No. 15]

On December 8, 2017, Plaintiff Joe Edward Collins, III (“Plaintiff”), proceeding 

pro se, filed this action against the County of San Diego. See Doc. No. 1. On March 22, 

2018, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 

without leave to amend. See Doc. No. 11. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. See Doc. 

No. 14. Plaintiff now moves to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Doc. No. 15. For the reasons set forth below, the Court 

DENIES Plaintiff’s motion. 

First, “[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in 

writing that it is not taken in good faith.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). An appeal “is 

frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 

490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Here, the Court finds that the instant appeal is not taken in 

good faith, as it lacks an arguable basis in law. The Court explained in its Order 

Case 3:17-cv-02467-MMA-KSC Document 18 Filed 04/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
 -2- 17cv2467-MMA (KSC)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction that “[a]t its core, 

Plaintiff’s claim centers on his court-ordered child support obligations.” Doc. No. 11 at 

3. The Court elaborated that, “[i]n other words, Plaintiff seeks to challenge, here in 

federal court, adverse rulings in state court.” Id. at 4 (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted). Because such a challenge is improper in federal court, the Court finds 

that Plaintiff’s appeal is not taken in good faith. 

Second, Plaintiff has not satisfied the requirements of Federal Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 24. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24 sets forth the requirements for a 

party to proceed IFP on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 24. Pursuant to Rule 24, 

. . . 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 Plaintiff’s affidavit accompanying his motion to proceed IFP 

on appeal, Plaintiff states that his issues on appeal are “I am a disabled veteran who’s 

[sic] only income is disability from the V.A. in the amount of $675.00 per month.” Doc. 

No. 15 at 1. Thus, because Plaintiff has not specified the issue(s) he wishes to appeal, he 

is not entitled to proceed IFP on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(B)-(C). 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP on appeal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 6, 2018

 _____________________________ 

 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:17-cv-02467-MMA-KSC Document 18 Filed 04/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2