Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01719/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01719-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:2241fd Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)

---

– 1 – 16-cv-1719 DMS (BGS)

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

ELISIO ATENIA LORENZO,

Petitioner,

Case No. 16-cv-1719 DMS (BGS)

ORDER DENYING MOTION 

FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IN 

v. FORMA PAUPERIS

MR. FIGUEROA, Warden, and 

ESTRADA, Detention Officer,

Respondents.

Petitioner Elisio Atenia Lorenzo has filed a motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis (“IFP”) in his appeal of this Court’s decision denying his petition for writ 

of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.1

 For the reasons set out below, the motion

is denied.

An indigent party who cannot afford the expense of pursuing an appeal may 

file a motion for leave to proceed IFP. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); Fed. R. App. P. 

24(a)(1). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a), a party to a district 

court action who seeks to appeal IFP must first file a motion with the district court

which: “(A) shows in the detail prescribed by Form 4 of the Appendix of Forms the 

 1 On August 28, 2017, Petitioner filed a financial affidavit with a notice of appeal. 

The Court construes the financial affidavit as a motion to proceed IFP.

Case 3:16-cv-01719-DMS-BGS Document 11 Filed 09/05/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
– 2 – 16-cv-1719 DMS (BGS)

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

party’s inability to pay or to give security for fees and costs;2 (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). Additionally, if a party seeking to proceed IFP 

is a prisoner as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h), the party “shall submit a certified 

copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the prisoner 

for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint or notice 

of appeal, obtained from the appropriate official of each prison at which the prisoner 

is or was confined.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). However, even if a party provides 

proof of indigence, “[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). A 

party satisfies the “good faith” requirement if he or she seeks review of any issue 

that is “nonfrivolous.” Hooker v. American Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir.

2002). An issue is frivolous if it has “no arguable basis in fact or law.” O’Loughlin 

v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1990).

Petitioner is a prisoner under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h), which includes any person 

detained in any facility for violations of the terms and conditions of probation. While 

Petitioner has submitted a financial affidavit, he has not included a certified copy of 

his trust fund account statements for the past six months. Because Petitioner has not 

filed sufficient material to enable the Court to determine Petitioner’s eligibility for 

proceeding IFP, the motion is denied on this basis. 

Even assuming Petitioner has shown his eligibility to proceed IFP, he has 

failed to demonstrate that he intends to present any non-frivolous argument on 

appeal. Plaintiff’s sole argument on appeal is that Preap v. Johnson, 303 F.R.D. 

566, affirmed, 831 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2016) mandates his release. However, as 

explained in the previous order, Preap is inapplicable to the present action. Because 

 2 Form 4 of the Appendix of Forms requires a prisoner to attach a certified prison 

trust account statement showing all receipts, expenditures and balances during the 

last six months.

Case 3:16-cv-01719-DMS-BGS Document 11 Filed 09/05/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
– 3 – 16-cv-1719 DMS (BGS)

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

Petitioner’s argument has no arguable basis in law, his IFP appeal is frivolous. 

Therefore, the Court certifies that Petitioner’s IFP appeal would not be taken in 

“good faith” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See Coppedge v. United States, 

369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962); Gardner v. Pogue, 558 F.2d 548, 550 (9th Cir. 1977) 

(indigent appellant is permitted to proceed IFP on appeal only if appeal would not 

be frivolous). Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion is denied. The Clerk shall close this

case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 5, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-01719-DMS-BGS Document 11 Filed 09/05/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3