Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-00082/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-00082-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 422
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
Cause of Action: 11:101 Bankruptcy

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

IN RE MAXINE WEBB

MAXINE WEBB,

Appellant,

 v.

WILLIAM T. NEARY, TRUSTEE, et al.,

Appellees.

 

No. C 06-0082 SBA

ORDER

[Docket No. 46]

Before the Court is pro se appellant Maxine Webb’s application to proceed in forma pauperis on

appeal [Docket No. 46]. For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES the motion. 

BACKGROUND

On January 9, 2006, Webb filed a notice of appeal pro se of the bankruptcy court’s ruling, and

later filed an IFP application on July 21, 2006. 

The Court denied Webb’s IFP application, noting that Webb had already paid the filing fee for

the appeal in the Bankruptcy Court, and had also made payment arrangments for the transcripts of the

bankruptcy proceeding. The Court further noted that Webb had not demonstrated an inability to pay the

requisite fees and costs. 

On March 30, 2007, this Court affirmed the ruling of the bankruptcy court. Webb filed a notice

of appeal of this Court’s decision on May 31, 2007.

LEGAL STANDARDS

Federal courts may authorize the maintenance of an action without prepayment of fees and costs

if a person shows, by affidavit, that “the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefore.”

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The supporting affidavit must state the facts of the affiant’s poverty with “some

Case 4:06-cv-00082-SBA Document 49 Filed 06/14/07 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

particularity, definiteness and certainty.” U.S. v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (per

curiam) (citation omitted). The statute also authorizes the courts to dismiss an IFP action if: (1) the

allegation of poverty is untrue; (2) the action is frivolous or malicious; (3) the action fails to state a claim;

or (4) the action seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2). However, the court should exercise leniency when construing pro se IFP applications. See

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990); Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305,

1308 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (per curiam).

A party to a district court action who desires to appeal IFP must first file a motion with the district

court, adhering to the filing requirements of § 1915(a). FED. R. APP. P. 24(a)(1). Additionally, the party

must also show an entitlement to redress and a statement of issues to be presented on appeal. Id. If the

court finds that the appeal is frivolous, it has the power to deny leave to proceed IFP. Hooker v.

American Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002). 

If the district court denies the motion to proceed on appeal IFP, the party may subsequently file

a motion to proceed on appeal IFP in the court of appeals. FED. R. APP. P. 24(a)(5). 

ANALYSIS

Neither Webb’s application for IFP status, nor her notice of appeal state the issues she intends

to appeal as required by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24. 

Additionally, Webb’s affidavit does not state the facts of her poverty with particularity, nor with

definiteness and certainty. Ten months ago, Webb filed a prior IFP application. Her current IFP

application has a number of unexplained inconsistencies. In her July 2006 IFP application, she had been

employed and earning a net income of $3,200 per month. However, in her present IFP application, she

states that she is no longer employed, and that in her last employment, she only earned $30 per hour on

a part-time basis. Her home was worth $600,000 in July 2006, but is now worth $400,000. She currently

supports two dependents, whereas in July 2006 she was only supporting one dependent. 

Even if these inconsistencies are overlooked, Webb still fails to show in detail her inability to pay

the requisite fees and costs. She states that she receives weekly disability payments of $391, but also

includes an additional $700 without explaining the frequency of that payment. She does not indicate how

Case 4:06-cv-00082-SBA Document 49 Filed 06/14/07 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

much she contributes to the support of her two dependents. Furthermore, she still owns a home, albeit

now worth approximately $400,000, and a 2005 vehicle. Due to the limited information Webb provides

in her affidavit, the Court is not able to find that she may proceed IFP. 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, Maxine Webb’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal [Docket No.

46] is DENIED without prejudice. If Webb still wishes to pursue her appeal in forma pauperis, she may

file a motion with the appellate court within thirty days of service of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 June 13, 2007 

Saundra Brown Armstrong 

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-00082-SBA Document 49 Filed 06/14/07 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM T. NEARY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MAXINE WEBB et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV06-00082 SBA 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court,

Northern District of California.

That on June 14, 2007, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said

envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located

in the Clerk's office.

 U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of CA

Clerk’s Office

1300 Clay Street

#300

Oakland, CA 94612

Leslie Tchaikovsky

U.S. Bankruptcy Court

Northern District of California

1300 Clay St. #300

P.O. Box 2070

Oakland, CA 94604

Lois I. Brady

Chapter 7 Trustee

P.O. Box 12754

Oakland, CA 94604

Martha Bronitsky

Case 4:06-cv-00082-SBA Document 49 Filed 06/14/07 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

Chapter 13 Trustee

244301 Southland Drive

#200

Hayward, CA 94545-0541

Maxine Webb

1723 Trebbiano Street

Tulare, CA 93424

Dated: June 14, 2007

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:06-cv-00082-SBA Document 49 Filed 06/14/07 Page 5 of 5