Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-01954/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-01954-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CAROLE MARASOVIC,

Plaintiff,

v

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ADULT

PROTECTIVE SERVICES et al,

Defendants.

 /

No C-00-1954 VRW

Related to

C-04-4141 VRW

ORDER

This order addresses two miscellaneous matters remaining

in this case. First, plaintiff has moved for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis (“IFP”) on her appeal (Doc #131) of the court’s

August 17, 2004, decision denying her request to reopen this case

(Doc #125). Plaintiff already obtained IFP status in a related

case No C-04-4141 VRW (“04-4141”) (Doc #4 of 04-4141) and has

appealed the court’s February 21, 2006, order dismissing that case

(Doc #44 of 04-4141). On April 7, 2006, the Ninth Circuit

consolidated plaintiff’s appeal in 04-4141 with her appeal in the

present case. Doc #136.

Case 3:00-cv-01954-VRW Document 138 Filed 06/09/06 Page 1 of 3
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

FRAppP 24(a) describes the requirements for proceeding

IFP on appeal:

(1) Motion in the District Court. Except [for a

plaintiff who was permitted to proceed IFP in a district-court

action], a party to [the] 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.

Plaintiff failed to include, either within her

application to proceed IFP (Doc #132) or in a separate affidavit, a

statement regarding “the issues that [plaintiff] intends to present

on appeal.” FRAppP 24(a)(1)(C). Hence, because plaintiff did not

comply with the requirements of FRAppP 24(a)(1)(C), the court

DENIES plaintiff’s present motion for leave to proceed IFP. The

court notes that pursuant to the requirements set forth in FRAppP

24(5), plaintiff may file a motion before the court of appeals for

leave to proceed IFP within 30 days after service of this order.

Next, the court has received a letter dated May 3, 2006,

from Steven M McCarthy, an attorney who previously represented

plaintiff in this case. McCarthy contends that the court granted

his motion to withdraw as counsel over five years ago but that he

has “been again receiving mailings regarding [this] matter.” 

Accordingly, McCarthy has submitted a proposed order seeking to

relieve him of his responsibilities in this case.

McCarthy originally filed his motion to withdraw on March

16, 2001 (Doc #45) and the court heard argument on the motion on

April 26, 2001. The minute order for that hearing states that “Mr

McCarthy shall continue to accept service of all pleadings for

Case 3:00-cv-01954-VRW Document 138 Filed 06/09/06 Page 2 of 3
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

plaintiff and serve Ms Marasovic with such pleadings until such

time substitute counsel is entered for plaintiff.” Doc #62. On

May 3, 2001, the court issued an order granting McCarthy’s motion

to withdraw “subject to the following conditions: (1) counsel must

continue to accept service of all papers unless and until plaintiff

appears by other counsel, and (2) counsel must forward all such

papers to plaintiff. See Civil LR 11-5(b).” Doc #66. Because

substitute counsel has not been entered in this case, the court

DENIES McCarthy’s request to relieve him from the responsibilities

set forth in the court’s May 3, 2001, order.

The clerk is DIRECTED to place in the file McCarthy’s

letter and the proposed order that he provided and TERMINATE all

pending motions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:00-cv-01954-VRW Document 138 Filed 06/09/06 Page 3 of 3