Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01028/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01028-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 

---

1

17cv1028-MMA (BLM)

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

REJEANNE BERNIER, an individual, 

and HANS CROTEAU, an individual,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY 

INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 17cv1028-MMA (BLM)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' 

MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO 

APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS

[Doc. Nos. 14, 15]

Before the Court is Plaintiff Rejeanne Bernier’s (“Bernier”) and Plaintiff Hans 

Croteau’s (“Hans”) motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(1). Doc. Nos. 14, 15. Having 

considered Plaintiffs’ motions, the relevant law, and the record in this case, the Court 

GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motions.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On May 18, 2017, Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, commenced this action by filing a 

complaint for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair 

dealing. Doc. No. 1. Pursuant to receipt number CAS091226, Plaintiffs paid the $400.00 

filing fee. Id. On June 12, 2017, Defendant Travelers Property Casualty Insurance 

Case 3:17-cv-01028-MMA-BLM Document 18 Filed 01/02/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

17cv1028-MMA (BLM)

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

Company (“Travelers”) filed a partial motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint on the 

grounds that some of Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by res judicata and one claim fails to 

state a claim. See Doc. No. 3. On July 7, 2017, Travelers filed a motion to declare 

Plaintiffs vexatious litigants. See Doc. No. 4. Plaintiffs opposed both motions [Doc. 

Nos. 7, 8] and Travelers replied [Doc. Nos. 9, 10]. On November 29, 2017, the Court 

granted in part and denied in part Travelers’ motion to dismiss and granted Travelers’

motion to declare Plaintiffs vexatious litigants. Doc. No. 12. The Court required 

Plaintiffs to each post a bond in the amount of $50,000.00 to proceed with the lawsuit and 

entered the following pre-filing order:

The Clerk of this Court may not file or accept any further complaints filed by 

or on behalf of Plaintiffs Rejeanne Bernier or Hans Croteau which pertain to 

Travelers Property Casualty Insurance Company Policy no. 976025623. If 

Plaintiffs wish to file a complaint, they must provide the court with an 

application for the pre-filing order, which must be supported by a declaration 

from Plaintiffs made under penalty of perjury that: (a) they have not 

previously brought a lawsuit arising out of the same set of facts or the same 

transactional nucleus of facts asserted in the new complaint or, if they have 

previously brought such a lawsuit, the claims asserted in that lawsuit were not 

previously dismissed with prejudice; (b) that the claims they seek to assert are 

neither frivolous nor brought in bad faith; and (c) that prior to filing they 

conducted a reasonable investigation of the facts and law, and that they 

support their claims.

Id. at 37. On December 29, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit

[Doc. No. 13] and each filed motions for leave to appeal IFP [Doc. Nos. 14, 15].

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), “any 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 or security therefor, by a person 

who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such [person] . . .

possesses that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” Under 

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a):

Case 3:17-cv-01028-MMA-BLM Document 18 Filed 01/02/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

17cv1028-MMA (BLM)

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) Except as stated in Rule 24(a)(3), 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.

The determination of whether a plaintiff is indigent, and therefore unable to pay 

the filing fee, falls within the court’s sound discretion. Cal. Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 

939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991), reversed on other grounds, 506 U.S. 194 (1993). A 

party need not be completely destitute to be eligible for IFP status. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont 

de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948). The affidavit supporting an IFP motion 

is sufficient if it alleges facts showing that the plaintiff, because of poverty, cannot pay or 

give security for court costs and still be able to provide herself and her dependents with 

“the necessities of life.” Id. at 339.

ANALYSIS

After reviewing Plaintiffs’ affidavits in support of their motions to proceed IFP on 

appeal, the Court finds that they have made an adequate showing that they lack the 

financial resources or assets to pay or give security for court costs and still be able to 

provide the necessities of life for themselves. Plaintiff Bernier indicates she receives 

$4,980.87 in retirement, such as social security, pensions, annuities, and insurance, and

$1,317.70 in disability, such as social security insurance payments. Doc. No. 14 at 3. 

However, she specifies that her “retirement is assigned” to her consolidated debts, and 

therefore her total monthly income is only $1,317.70. Id. at 3, 8. She also indicates that 

she has $15.43 in her checking account and the value of her home is $83,000.00. Id. at 5. 

Plaintiff Bernier states that her total monthly expenses amount to $1,527.75. Id. at 6-8. 

Plaintiff Hans indicates he has no monthly income, owns a 1997 Dodge Caravan valued 

at $600, and has $400 in monthly expenses. Doc. No. 15 at 3-8. Accordingly, the 

affidavits supporting Plaintiffs’ IFP motions sufficiently show that Plaintiffs cannot pay 

or give security for court costs and still be able to provide themselves with the necessities 

Case 3:17-cv-01028-MMA-BLM Document 18 Filed 01/02/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

17cv1028-MMA (BLM)

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

of life. See Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ IFP motions claim an 

entitlement to redress and specifies the issues they wish to present on appeal. See Doc. 

Nos. 14, 15; see also Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(B)-(C). Specifically, Plaintiffs claim the 

pre-filing order, entered by this Court on November 29, 2017, is not narrowly tailored 

and is overbroad. Doc. Nos. 14 at 2, 15 at 2.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motions for leave to 

appeal IFP.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 2, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-01028-MMA-BLM Document 18 Filed 01/02/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4