This Court may authorize the commencement of an appeal “by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such prisoner possesses…Such affidavit shall state the nature of the action, defense or appeal and affiant’s belief that the person is entitled to redress.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); see also Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1), requiring appellants to file an affidavit in the district court stating inability to give security for fees and costs, claiming an entitlement to redress, and stating the issues the party plans to present upon appeal. The Court’s form additionally notes, “[a] Prisoner 9 Case 0:05-cv-61335-AJ Document 129 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/26/2008 Page 9 of 63 seeking to proceed IFP shall submit an affidavit stating all assets.

If the district court denies pauper status, the party may file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the Court of Appeals. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(4)-(9). The good faith standard is an objective one.

If Craven’s counsel has a good faith belief, after conducting due diligence in accordance with the D.C. Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1(a), his client might meet the objective in forma pauperis standard, and a motion in compliance with Fed. R. App. Proc. 24, including the requisite Form 4 affidavit, should follow. Accordingly, Craven should file a motion to that effect in accordance with LCvR 5.

As such, if this Court imposes such a bond, she will simply file an application to proceed in forma pauperis, which either this Court or the D.C. Circuit will be obliged to grant, because the plaintiffs, by claiming their attorney expenses of defending the appeal will be in the millions of dollars, will be judicially estopped from claiming that Ms. Craven’s appeal is frivolous. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a) (permitting party to proceed on appeal brought in good faith without giving security for fees and costs when unable to pay); New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 750-51 (2001) (judicial estoppel). Case 1:96-cv-01285-TFH Document 3862 Filed 09/01/11 Page 25 of 31 Craven Opposition to Motion for Appeal Bond Case No: 1:96cv01285 (TFH) 19 Granting an excessive appeal bond for an objector on the supposition that the appeal is frivolous will create exactly the sort of multiple levels of review of an appeal that the Supreme Court rejected in Devlin v. Scardelletti, 536 U.S. 1 (2002).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ______________________________________ Stephen Thomas Yelverton Plaintiff, vs. Hamilton P. Fox, III Assistant Bar Counsel, Office of Bar Counsel of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, Defendant. ______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 1:13-cv-00314-RWR DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S “MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL” Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915, Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a) and other applicable rules and law, Defendant Fox hereby responds to Plaintiff’s “Motion To Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal.”1 (Doc. 66).

Accordingly, Fairbank does not have any claim that shares “a common question of law or fact” with this case. Fed. R. App. P. 24(b). The operative complaint in this case concerns title 15, section 3349 of the California Code of Regulations, and the adoption of twenty-two regulations related to the execution process.

Accordingly, Cox does not have any claim that shares with this case “a common question of law or fact.” Fed. R. App. P. 24(b). The operative complaint in this case concerns title 15, section 3349 of the California Code of Regulations, and the adoption of twenty-two regulations related to the execution process.

Response, p.9.) Plaintiff suggests in conclusory fashion that a plaintiff must pursue review under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(5) and contest the district court’s certification of a non-good faith appeal Case: 1:04-cv-00516 Document #: 54 Filed: 01/10/11 Page 8 of 14 PageID #:1033 9 before his appeal constitutes an additional strike. Id.

Accordingly, Brown cannot conceivably have any claim "that share[s] with the main action a common question of law or fact." Fed. R. App. P. 24(b). The operative complaint in this case concerns revised Operational Procedure 770, which the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) issued on May 15, 2007.