YU HIN CHAN v. KAREN MAY BACDAYAN, ET AL.

• Court: District Court, E.D. Louisiana
• Decided: March 31, 2026
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01959
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

YU HIN CHAN CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 25-1959

KAREN MAY BACDAYAN, ET AL. SECTION “R”

ORDER AND REASONS Before the Court is pro se plaintiff Yu Hin Chan’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal with the Fifth Circuit.1 For the reasons that follow, the Court denies Chan’s motion. A claimant may proceed with an appeal in forma pauperis if she meets three requirements. First, the claimant must submit “an affidavit that includes a statement . . . that [she] is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Based on this information, the district court must determine whether the costs of appeal would cause an undue financial hardship. See Prows v. Kastner, 842 F.2d 138, 140 (5th Cir. 1998). Second, the claimant’s affidavit must “state[] the issues that the party intends to present on appeal.” Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(C); accord 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) (“Such affidavit shall state the nature of the . . . appeal and

1 R. Doc. 10. affiant’s belief that the person is entitled to redress.”). Third, the claimant’s appeal must be “taken in good faith.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P.

24(a)(4)(B). “Good faith is demonstrated when a party seeks appellate review of any issue ‘not frivolous.’” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (citing Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962)). An issue is not frivolous if it involves “legal points arguable on their merits.” Id.

The Court pretermits discussion of Chan’s failure to provide fulsome responses to all questions necessary to make a reasoned decision on whether the costs of appeal would cause her financial hardship as her intended appeal

is frivolous. Plaintiff states that her issue on appeal is that “lower court erred in dismissal.”2 This claim is conclusory and fails to identify any defect rendering the judgment contrary to the law and evidence. See Chalmers v. Ridge, 100 F. App’x 961, 963 (5th Cir. 2004) (affirming district court’s

finding that appeal was not taken in good faith and noting “[a]lthough we apply less stringent standards to parties proceeding pro se[,] . . . pro se parties must still brief the issues and reasonably comply with the requirements of Fed. R. [App.] P. 28”); see also Spearman v. Collins, 500 F.

App’x 742, 744 (10th Cir. 2012) (finding appeal was not taken in good faith when the appellant “ma[de] only conclusory, vague and unsubstantiated”

2 R. Doc. 10. assignments of error). The Court finds that Chan has failed to identify a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Her intended appeal is therefore not “taken in good faith,” and the Court must deny her motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(4)(B). Accordingly, Chan’s motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 31st _ day of March, 2026.

derek Varee SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE