Hilario Pankim v. Barr

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 PASCUAL HILARIO PANKIM, 7 Case No. 20-cv-02941-JSC Petitioner, 8 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 9 APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS WILLIAM P. BARR, et al., 10 Re: Dkt. No. 16 Respondents. 11

12 13 Before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion to Appeal In Forma Pauperis (“Motion”). (Dkt. 14 No. 16.) Having considered the Motion, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s Motion without prejudice 15 to resubmission. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(1)(C) requires a party to “state the 16 issues that the party intends to present on appeal.” These issues must be phrased in the “typical 17 form of an issue for the court of appeals—that is, [they must] set forth a specific contention or 18 question regarding an alleged error on the part of the district court warranting review.” Garfield v. 19 Astrue, No. C 03-4124 VRW, 2009 WL 1975382 at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 8, 2009). The Motion 20 states only that it will file a notice of appeal regarding the “den[ial] in part and dismiss[al] in part 21 [of] Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus,” and is thus insufficiently specific under 22 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(1)(C). (Dkt. No. 16 at 2.) 23 Furthermore, Petitioner is ordered to complete Appellate Form 4, “Affidavit 24 Accompanying Motion for Permission to Appeal In Forma Pauperis,” as published in the 25 Appendix of Forms accompanying the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and attach the 26 completed Form 4 to Petitioner’s revised Motion. 27 // 1 Accordingly, Petitioner’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is DENIED without 2 || prejudice to submitting a new application that complies with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3 |] 24. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: July 20, 2020 6 ne CQWELINE SCOTT CORLEY, 7 United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28