Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02460/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02460-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kathy Grismore,

Plaintiff,

v.

Capital One F.S.B., Capital One Services,

Inc., and Capital One Bank,

Defendants

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 05-2460-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Currently pending before this Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis

for appeal (Doc. 127). After reviewing the motion and the response thereto, the Court issues

the following ruling.

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915 provides that “[a]ny court of the United States may authorize

the commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or

criminal, or appeal therein, without prepayment of fees and costs or security therefor.”

(Emphasis added.) However, as was articulated by the Supreme Court in In re McDonald,

489 U.S. 180, 183 (1989), paupers filing pro se petitions are not subject to the financial

considerations (filing fees and attorney's fees) that tend to deter other litigants from filing

frivolous petitions. Id. Moreover, every paper filed with the Clerk of the Court, regardless

of how repetitious or frivolous, requires the use of the institution’s limited resources. Id.

Furthermore, it is the Court's responsibility to see that these resources are allocated in a way

that promotes the interests of justice. Id. Plaintiff’s continual filing of baseless causes of

action in this and several other Courts in the United States District Court, for the District of

Case 2:05-cv-02460-SMM Document 131 Filed 03/26/08 Page 1 of 2
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

1

Plaintiff is no stranger to litigation or depositions. She has been involved as a plaintiff

in seven (7) other federal lawsuits and as a defendant in one (1) federal lawsuit.

2

 This is not Plaintiff’s first refusal to comply with Court orders. Plaintiff previously

was uncooperative and refused to answer background questions during a deposition as

demonstrated in Grismore v. United Recovery Systems, 2:05-CV-2094 (D. Ariz. 2006). In

United Recovery Systems, a case also involving the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15

U.S.C. 1692 et seq., Plaintiff refused to answer background questions about her schooling,

her job, her marriage and divorce, other lawsuits, her credit, and many other questions. [Id.

6:18-20; 7:10-21; 15:24-16:14.] The court ordered that Plaintiff respond to all questions as

outlined, and sanctioned her with the cost of United Recovery System’s reasonable attorneys’

fees and fees that may be incurred in re-scheduling the deposition. Subsequent to the Court

Order, Plaintiff continued to be uncooperative and continued evading many of the questions.

- 2 -

Arizona,1 as well as Plaintiff’s flagrant disregard for the Federal and Local Rules and failure

to comply with orders from this and other courts2

 has wasted and will continue to waste

valuable and limited resources. Morever, Plaintiff’s repetitive and blatant failure to comply

with this Court’s orders which has resulted in prejudice to defendants has established that

there is a lack of good faith on the part of Plaintiff in filing this appeal. Consequently,

pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) (an appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the

trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith), Plaintiff’s motion to proceed

in forma pauperis for the purpose of filing an appeal of this Court’s dismissal of her action

is DENIED.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED DENYING Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in forma

pauperis for appeal (Doc. 127).

DATED this 26th day of March, 2008.

Case 2:05-cv-02460-SMM Document 131 Filed 03/26/08 Page 2 of 2