Hilario Pankim v. Barr
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:20-cv-02941
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Pascual Hilario Pankim v. William P. Barr, Judge Corley denied Pankim’s request to appeal without paying fees, without prejudice, because it lacked specific issues and Form 4.
Pascual Hilario Pankim’s request to appeal without paying filing fees was denied without prejudice. He may submit a new application that complies with the appellate rule and includes the required Form 4.
What happened
In Pascual Hilario Pankim v. William P. Barr, Pankim asked to appeal without paying the required filing fees. He said the appeal would concern the partial denial and partial dismissal of his petition.
The court found that Pankim’s request did not identify specific legal issues or alleged errors for the appeals court to review. The request also did not include the required affidavit form.
Judge Corley denied the request without prejudice, allowing Pankim to submit a new request that complies with the appellate rules. The court ordered him to complete Appellate Form 4 and attach it to a revised request.
The detailed version
- Hilario Pankim v. Barr · No. 3:20-cv-02941
- Jacquelyn Corley
- July 20, 2020
Background
Pascual Hilario Pankim filed a motion seeking permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The motion stated that he intended to appeal the partial denial and partial dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Court’s Analysis
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(1)(C) requires an applicant seeking to appeal without paying fees to identify the issues the applicant intends to present on appeal. The issues must state a specific question or contention about an alleged error by the district court that warrants review. The court found that Pankim’s statement was not specific enough because it only referred generally to the partial denial and partial dismissal of his petition.
The court also ordered Pankim to complete Appellate Form 4, an affidavit accompanying a request for permission to appeal without paying fees, and to attach the completed form to a revised motion.
Ruling
Judge Corley denied Pankim’s application to proceed without paying fees without prejudice to submitting a new application that complies with Rule 24. The order addressed only the appeal-fee application and did not decide the merits of the underlying petition.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.