Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-05147/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-05147-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIE A ARNOLD,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-05147-SVK 

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION 

FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 51

Plaintiff Marie A. Arnold, proceeding pro se, has filed an application for leave to proceed 

in forma pauperis (“IFP Application”) on appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Dkt. 51. 

Plaintiff appeals this Court’s February 13, 2020 order in which the Court granted Defendant’s 

motion to dismiss and dismissed Plaintiff’s first amended complaint without leave to amend. 

Dkt. 48. 

Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that “a party to a districtcourt 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 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. 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).

A party need not be completely destitute to be eligible for in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status. 

Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948). The affidavit supporting 

an IFP application 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 

Case 5:19-cv-05147-SVK Document 57 Filed 02/28/20 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

with “the necessities of life.” Id. at 339. Though Plaintiff is currently unemployed, her monthly 

income from real property, child support, and disability payments is approximately $4,506.00. 

Dkt. 51 at 2. Plaintiff also values her home at $250.001and her vehicle at $6,900.00. Dkt. 51 at 4. 

Plaintiff’s monthly expenses, which include home mortgage payments, utilities, food, clothing, 

medical expenses, transportation, and insurance payments, are valued at approximately $2,333.00. 

Dkt. 51 at 6. This information indicates that Plaintiff has a monthly surplus of approximately 

$2,173.00. From this information, the Court does not find that Plaintiff has demonstrated an 

inability to pay court costs and still be able to provide herself and her dependents with the 

necessities of life. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s IFP Application is DENIED. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue her 

appeal in forma pauperis, she may file a motion with the appellate court. 

SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 28, 2020

SUSAN VAN KEULEN

United States Magistrate Judge

1 As Plaintiff resides in Las Vegas, Nevada, this number must be in error. However, the Court 

does not speculate as to the value of the home for the purposes of this analysis. 

Case 5:19-cv-05147-SVK Document 57 Filed 02/28/20 Page 2 of 2