Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08138/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08138-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 18:241 Conspiracy Against Citizen Rights

---

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

Lynnell Levingston, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Patricia Pibrun, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-8138-PCT-LOA

ORDER

 This matter arises on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis on Appeal. (docket # 76)

On December 4, 2009, the Court stayed this matter until March 5, 2010 in view

of Plaintiff’s bankruptcy proceedings in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of

Arizona. (docket # 73) Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal and a Motion for Leave

to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on appeal. (docket ## 75, 76)

 Where a plaintiff has been granted leave to file the action in forma pauperis,

pauper status automatically continues for the appeal unless the district court affirmatively

certifies that the appeal is taken in bad faith or is frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R.

App. P. 24(a) (stating that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal should be sought in the

district court in the first instance). In this case, the Court denied Plaintiff in forma pauperis

status to pursue her § 1983 action. (docket # 13) 

By pursuing an appeal at this time without leave of the Bankruptcy Court,

Plaintiff, or even the trustee of a debtor’s estate, has likely violated the automatic stay of this

Case 3:09-cv-08138-LOA Document 80 Filed 02/09/10 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

- 2 -

case imposed by 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) and her appeal is void as a matter of law. In re Capgro

Leasing Assocs., 169 B.R. 305, 310 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y. 1994) (“[t]he automatic stay prevents a

debtor from appealing the decision of a non-bankruptcy forum,” citing, among others, Delpit

v. Commissioner, 18 F.3d 768 (9th Cir. 1994)). Moreover, this interlocutory appeal is frivolous

because the order Plaintiff has appealed is a non-appealable order. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and

1292. 

In view of the foregoing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court certifies that the appeal is

frivolous. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Appeal in

forma pauperis, docket # 76, is DENIED.

Dated this 9th day of February, 2010.

Case 3:09-cv-08138-LOA Document 80 Filed 02/09/10 Page 2 of 2