From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chism v. Adams

United States District Court, E.D. California
Sep 9, 2010
No. CIV S-03-1793 MCE KJM P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 9, 2010)

Opinion

No. CIV S-03-1793 MCE KJM P.

September 9, 2010


ORDER


Petitioner, a state prison inmate proceeding with counsel with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, has timely filed a notice of appeal from the judgment dated August 6, 2010, denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He has also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

Although the notice of appeal is filed in pro per, counsel has not sought to withdraw in compliance with Local Rule 182(d).

Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that a party to a district court action who desires to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal must file a motion in the district court which:

(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.

Fed.R.App.P. 24(a)(1). Petitioner has demonstrated his inability to pay but has not otherwise complied with the rule.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (docket no. 72) is denied without prejudice.

DATED: September 9, 2010.


Summaries of

Chism v. Adams

United States District Court, E.D. California
Sep 9, 2010
No. CIV S-03-1793 MCE KJM P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 9, 2010)
Case details for

Chism v. Adams

Case Details

Full title:BRANDON CHISM, Petitioner, v. D. ADAMS, Respondent

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Sep 9, 2010

Citations

No. CIV S-03-1793 MCE KJM P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 9, 2010)