Arnold v. Attorney General Department of Justice
- Susan Van Keulen
- 5:19-cv-05147
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Arnold v. United States, Judge Van Keulen denied Marie A. Arnold’s request to appeal without paying fees because her finances showed she could pay.
Marie A. Arnold, who was seeking permission to appeal without paying court fees.
What happened
In Arnold v. United States, Marie A. Arnold, representing herself, asked to appeal without paying court fees. She was appealing an earlier order that dismissed her amended complaint without allowing another amendment.
Arnold reported about $4,506 in monthly income from real property, child support, and disability payments. She reported about $2,333 in monthly expenses, leaving a surplus of about $2,173. The court concluded that she had not shown she could not pay the appeal costs while meeting her and her dependents’ basic needs.
Judge Susan Van Keulen denied the application. The order said Arnold could ask the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for permission to proceed without paying the fees.
The detailed version
- Arnold v. Attorney General Department of Justice · No. 5:19-cv-05147
- Susan Van Keulen
- Feb. 28, 2020
Background
Marie A. Arnold, who was representing herself, filed an application to proceed without paying court fees for her appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeal concerned the district court’s February 13, 2020 order granting the United States’ motion to dismiss and dismissing Arnold’s first amended complaint without leave to amend.
Legal standard
The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure require a person seeking to appeal without paying fees to file a motion in the district court. The person must provide an affidavit showing an inability to pay the required fees and costs, entitlement to relief, and the issues intended for appeal. A person does not have to be completely without money to qualify, but the financial information must show that paying the costs would interfere with meeting basic necessities of life.
Court’s analysis
Arnold reported that she was unemployed but received approximately $4,506 per month from real property, child support, and disability payments. She reported approximately $2,333 in monthly expenses, including mortgage payments, utilities, food, clothing, medical expenses, transportation, and insurance. The court calculated a monthly surplus of approximately $2,173 and found that Arnold had not shown an inability to pay court costs while still providing herself and her dependents with life’s necessities.
Arnold also listed her home’s value as $250.00 and her vehicle’s value as $6,900.00. In a footnote, the court stated that the home value appeared to be an error because Arnold resided in Las Vegas, Nevada, but said it would not speculate about the home’s value for this analysis.
Disposition
Judge Susan Van Keulen denied Arnold’s application to proceed without paying fees on appeal. The order stated that Arnold could file a motion with the appellate court if she wished to pursue the appeal without paying the fees.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.