Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02554/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02554-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

MACJHAY YAGAO,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 15cv2554-WQH-JLB

ORDER

v.

JOHN WEAVER, Warden,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

On November 1, 2015, Petitioner Macjhay Yagao commenced this action by

filing a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (ECF No. 1). On December 17, 2015,

Petitioner filed an Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus challenging his San

Diego Superior Court conviction for the transportation of more than 28.5 grams of

marijuana in violation of California Health and Safety Code section 11360(c). (ECF

No. 6). On December 9, 2016, Petitioner filed a motion for stay and abeyance. (ECF

No. 34). 

On July 7, 2017, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and

Recommendation recommending this Court deny the Amended Petition and the motion

for stay and abeyance. (ECF No. 37). On July 28, 2017, Petitioner filed objections to

the Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 38). 

On August 29, 2017, the Court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its

entirety, denied the Amended Petition, denied the motion for stay and abeyance, and

- 1 - 15cv2554-WQH-JLB

Case 3:15-cv-02554-WQH-JLB Document 47 Filed 10/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
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

granted a certificate of appealability.1 (ECF No. 39). A Clerk’s Judgment was issued. 

(ECF No. 40). 

On September 25, 2017, the Petitioner filed a document in the United States

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which included a notice of appeal, a motion for

pro bono counsel, and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 41). 

Parties filing appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

are required to pay a filing fee. See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir.

1999). An action may proceed despite a party’s failure to pay only if the party is

granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Id. “To

proceed in forma pauperis is a privilege not a right.” Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114,

116 (9th Cir. 1965). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24, “a party to

a district court action who wishes to appeal in forma pauperis must file a motion in the

district court.” Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1). “The party must attach an affidavit that ...

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....” Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(A). Federal

Rule of Appellate Procedure 24 further provides: 

A party who was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in the district- court action . . . may proceed on appeal in forma pauperis without further authorization . . . unless (A) the district court . . . 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 (B) a statute provides otherwise. 

Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3).2

 “An 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). In

the Ninth Circuit, “good faith” means that “at least one issue or claim is found to be

non-frivolous.” Hooker v. Am. Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002). An

1

 On October 4, 2017, the Court of Appeals remanded this case to this Court for

the limited purpose of issuing a modified certificate of appealability which specifies which issues satisfy the standards set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). 

2

 Petitioner was not permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in the district court. This Court denied a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 5) and the action proceeded in district court only after Petitioner paid the applicable filing fee. (ECF No. 7). 

- 2 - 15cv2554-WQH-JLB

Case 3:15-cv-02554-WQH-JLB Document 47 Filed 10/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
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

action is “frivolous” for purposes of section 1915 if it lacks any arguable basis in law

or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 327 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745

F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1984).

In support of his motion to proceed in forma pauperis, Petitioner asserts only the

following: “Petitioner also moves the Court to proceed in forma pauperis because he

is an indigent detainee and unable to pay for the Court’s fees.” (ECF No. 41 at 1).

Petitioner has not provided the Court with any financial information in connection with

this motion and has not attached in affidavit which “shows in the detail prescribed by

Form 4 of the Appendix of Forms the party’s inability to pay or give security for fees

and costs” as required by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a). Petitioner has

failed to provide the Court with any information upon which it can conclude that

Petitioner is unable to afford the costs of these proceedings. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to proceed in forma pauperis on

appeal is DENIED. (ECF No. 42) .

DATED: October 18, 2017

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 3 - 15cv2554-WQH-JLB

Case 3:15-cv-02554-WQH-JLB Document 47 Filed 10/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3