Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00396/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00396-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RENOVATION REALTY, INC.,

Plaintiff,

NO. 13-CV-396-MMA (BLM)

ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS ON APPEAL

[Doc. No. 36]

v.

NATHAN ESPLANADE,

Defendant.

Currently before the Court is Defendant Nathan Esplanade’s motion to

proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal. For the reasons set forth below, the

Court DENIES Defendant’s motion.

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). 

Defendant has not satisfied the requirements of Rule 24(a)(1). Although

Defendant has submitted an affidavit in support of his motion to proceed IFP, the

Case 3:13-cv-00396-MMA-BLM Document 39 Filed 11/04/13 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

affidavit states he has received social security, disability, or other welfare but does

not indicate the amount. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(A). Defendant also fails to

state the issues that he intends to present on appeal in his affidavit, as required by

Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(C). Because Defendant has not satisfied the requirements

of Rule 24(a)(1), he is not entitled to proceed IFP on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P

24(a)(1). The Court therefore DENIES Defendant’s motion.

The Court also notes that Defendant’s motion to proceed IFP on appeal should

be denied under 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.” 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). “In the absence of some evident improper motive, the

applicant’s good faith is established by the presentation of any issue that is not

plainly frivolous.” Ellis v. United States, 356 U.S. 674 (1958). An action is

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

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Here, Defendant’s appeal is not based on valid

grounds. Accordingly, the Court certifies that any appeal taken from the Court’s

September 20, 2013 Order will not be taken in good faith and is therefore frivolous. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). 

The Clerk of Court shall immediately notify the parties and the Court of

Appeals of this Order. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(4). Plaintiff may file a motion for

leave to proceed IFP on appeal in the Court of Appeals within thirty days after

service of notice of this Order. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5). Any such motion

“must include a copy of the affidavit filed in the district court and the district court’s

statement of reasons for its action.” Id.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 4, 2013

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-00396-MMA-BLM Document 39 Filed 11/04/13 Page 2 of 2