Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00241/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00241-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:1333in Personal Injury

---

1

3:19-cv-00241-GPC-KSC

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

SUSAN GONZALES,

Petitioner,

v.

DR. GWEN GLEASON-ROHRER,

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:19-cv-00241-GPC-KSC

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL

[Dkt. No. 7]

This Court previously granted Petitioner Susan Gonzales’s (“Petitioner”) motion to 

proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) but dismissed the action sua sponte without prejudice 

for failure to state a claim pursuant to § 1915(e)(2). See Dkt. No. 4. Thereafter, on 

March 27, 2019, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal of this Court’s dismissal of the action. 

Dkt. No. 6. On the same day, Petitioner filed a motion and affidavit for permission to 

proceed IFP on appeal, which is currently pending before this Court. Dkt. No. 7. On

April 10, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit referred the issue 

Case 3:19-cv-00241-GPC-KSC Document 11 Filed 06/03/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:19-cv-00241-GPC-KSC

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 whether IFP status should continue for the appeal or whether the appeal is frivolous or 

taken in bad faith. Dkt. No. 10. For the reasons below, Petitioner’s motion and affidavit

for permission to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED without prejudice. 

An indigent party who cannot afford the expense of pursuing an appeal may file a 

motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See FED. R. APP. P. 24(a); 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(a)(1). “A party seeking to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal must file a motion 

with the district court and 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.’” Ontiveros v. Cate, No. 09CV1503 JAH CAB, 2010 WL 

4316942, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2010) (quoting FED. R. APP. P. 24(a)(1)). If the

applicant does not claim an entitlement to redress or provide the statement of issues 

which she intends to present on appeal, IFP will be denied. See Tran v. Macomber, No. 

11-CV-00877-CW, 2016 WL 324348, at *15 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2016) (denying 

petitioner’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal where “[t]he 

application is deficient in that it . . . does not contain an affidavit in which Petitioner 

‘claims an entitlement to redress’ and ‘states the issues that the party intends to present 

on appeal’”) (citing FED. R. APP. P. 24(a)(1)).

This Court previously dismissed the action sua sponte without prejudice for failure 

to state a claim pursuant to § 1915(e)(2), finding that Petitioner did not allege facts 

establishing federal jurisdiction, and in any event, failed to provide sufficient factual 

allegations to support a claim for medical malpractice. See Dkt. No. 4. The Court 

observed that Petitioner’s employer San Diego Family Care had not been alleged to be a 

Government employer to be implicated by the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). Id. 

Nor had Petitioner alleged exhaustion of administrative remedies, a jurisdictional 

requisite to relief pursuant to the FTCA. Id. 

After the sua sponte dismissal, Petitioner filed a motion for permission to proceed 

IFP on appeal and attached an affidavit in support of the motion. Dkt. No. 7. However, 

Case 3:19-cv-00241-GPC-KSC Document 11 Filed 06/03/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:19-cv-00241-GPC-KSC

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

Petitioner’s affidavit has not claimed an entitlement to redress, nor has it set forth the 

issues that she intends to present on appeal. See Dkt. No. 7. Petitioner’s Notice of 

Appeal also does not discuss these issues. See Dkt. No. 6. 

Consequently, Petitioner has failed to meet the second and third requirements set 

forth under Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(1). Accordingly, Petitioner’s 

motion to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED without prejudice to Petitioner filing an 

application in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to proceed IFP on 

appeal. See FED. R. APP. P. 24(a)(5); Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 

(1962) (“If the District Court . . . denies leave to appeal in forma pauperis, the defendant 

may seek identical relief from the Court of Appeals.”).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 3, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-00241-GPC-KSC Document 11 Filed 06/03/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3