Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00453/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00453-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1343 Violation of Civil Rights

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JANA LACY-CURRY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ALAMEDA COUNTY SOCIAL

SERVICES, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-00453 SBA

ORDER

[Docket No. 43]

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Jana Lacy-Curry's ("Plaintiff") Application to

Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal ("IFP Application of Appeal") [Docket No. 43]. Having

considered Plaintiff's IFP Application on Appeal, and being fully informed, the Court hereby DENIES

Plaintiff's IFP Application on Appeal. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 On January 31, 2005, Plaintiff filed a complaint against defendants Alameda Social Services

Agency, Alameda County Superior Court, Lawanda Martin, the City of Oakland, and Reed Seiden.

Also on that date, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP Application"). The

case was initially assigned to Magistrate Judge Chen. On May 11, 2005, Magistrate Judge Chen granted

Plaintiff's IFP Application. 

On June 21, 2005, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed defendant City of Oakland. Subsequently, on

July 14, 2005, the case was reassigned to this Court. 

On September 7, 2005, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. The First Amended

Complaint asserted the following causes of action against the Alameda Social Services Agency, the

Alameda Superior Court, Lawanda Martin, and Reed Seiden: (1) violation of Plaintiff's constitutional

rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, (2) disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities

Act, and (3) violations of the California constitution pursuant to the California Unruh Act.

On December 8, 2005, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court reviewed the First Amended

Case 4:05-cv-00453-SBA Document 45 Filed 01/23/06 Page 1 of 4
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

Complaint and determined that the First Amended Complaint failed to state a claim and improperly

sought monetary relief from defendants who were immune from such relief. Accordingly, the Court

dismissed the action with prejudice. 

On January 17, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal. Also on that date, Plaintiff filed the

instant IFP Application on Appeal [Docket No. 43]. 

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), "[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 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." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). However, the statute also authorizes the district court to

dismiss a claim filed in forma pauperis "at any time" if the Court determines that: (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. See 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2). 

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24 provides that a party to a district court action who

desires to appeal in forma pauperis must first file a motion in the district court. Fed. R. App. P.

24(a)(1). In support of the motion, the party must provide the district court with an affidavit that: (a)

shows, in detail, the party's inability to pay or to give security for the requisite fees and costs; (b) claims

an entitlement to redress; and (c) states the issues that the party intends to present on appeal. Id. 

In general, to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, a litigant must be economically eligible, and

her appeal must not be frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th

Cir.1983). Probable success on the merits need not be shown. Id. at 220. However, the court must

examine whether the appeal involves "legal points arguable on their merits." Id. at 220 (quoting Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967)). An application for leave to appeal in forma pauperis has

sufficient substance to warrant consideration only if "it identifies with reasonable particularity the

Case 4:05-cv-00453-SBA Document 45 Filed 01/23/06 Page 2 of 4
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

claimed errors which will be the basis for the appeal." U.S. v. Farley, 238 F.2d 575, 576 (2nd Cir.

1956).

If the district court denies the motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, the party may

subsequently file a motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis in the court of appeals. Fed. R. App.

P. 24(a)(5). 

ANALYSIS

The benefit of proceeding in forma pauperis is a privilege, not a right. Franklin v. Murphy, 745

F.2d 1121, 1231 (9th Cir. 1984). To obtain this privilege, an applicant must demonstrate, to the Court's

satisfaction, her inability to pay the requisite fees and costs. See Williams v. Marshall, 795 F. Supp.

978, 979 (N.D. Cal. 1992). A statement of poverty is sufficient only if it demonstrates that the applicant

cannot pay court costs and still be able to provide herself and her dependants with the necessities of life.

Rowland v. Cal. Men's Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 203 (1993) (citing Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours &

Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948)).

Here, the Court finds that, due to changed circumstances in Plaintiff's financial status, Plaintiff

IFP Application on Appeal does not adequately demonstrate that she is unable to pay the requisite fees

and costs. For example, Plaintiff's IFP Application on Appeal now indicates that she receives $812 per

month in Social Security income and that her expenses amount to only $400. In contrast, Plaintiff's

prior IFP Application indicated that her expenses exceeded her income by $66. Based on the financial

information provided in Plaintiff's IFP Application on Appeal, the Court therefore concludes that

Plaintiff has not shown that she will be unable to provide herself with the necessities of life if she is not

granted leave to proceed on her appeal in forma pauperis. 

Further, Plaintiff has failed to clearly identify the issues she intends to present on appeal, as

required by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24 (a)(1)(C). See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(C). Indeed,

Plaintiff's separately filed Notice of Appeal merely states that Plaintiff is "appeal[ing] the judgment

issued in this case, as to Defendants Alameda County Social Services Agency, Lawanda Martin, and

Reed Seiden." Since Plaintiff is represented by counsel in this matter, Plaintiff's failure to comply with

Case 4:05-cv-00453-SBA Document 45 Filed 01/23/06 Page 3 of 4
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

the applicable Rules of Appellate Procedure is simply inexcusable. Moreover, on the record before it,

the Court is unable to conclude that there is a non-frivolous basis for Plaintiff's appeal. The dismissal

of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint was expressly premised on the Court's finding that Plaintiff was

attempting to pursue claims that were clearly barred by the Rooker-Feldman and Younger abstention

doctrines, as well as the Eleventh Amendment. The Court also found that three of the named defendants

were entitled to absolute immunity from all of Plaintiff's claims. Thus, for all of the above-stated

reasons, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff's IFP Application on Appeal. 

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on

Appeal [Docket No. 43] is DENIED. If Plaintiff still wishes to pursue her appeal in forma pauperis,

Plaintiff may file a motion with the appellate court within thirty (30) days after service of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 1/ 23/06 _________________________________

Saundra Brown Armstrong 

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-00453-SBA Document 45 Filed 01/23/06 Page 4 of 4