1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CYNTHIA EPES, Case No. 21-cv-07716-EMC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 9 v. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL 10 CURTIS SIDDEN, Docket No. 35 11 Defendant.

12 13 14 Plaintiff Cynthia L. Epes (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against Defendant Curtis Sidden, CEO of 15 American Credit Acceptance Company (“Defendant”) for breach of contract and common counts. 16 On January 12, 2022, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal 17 jurisdiction or, alternatively, motion to compel arbitration. Docket No. 31. Plaintiff now seeks 18 leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. 19 To proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, the motion must state “the nature of the action, 20 defense or appeal and affiant's belief that he is entitled to redress.”

(a); see also 21 Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1) (“The party must attach an affidavit that: (A) shows in the detail 22 prescribed by Form 4 of the Appendix of Forms the party's inability to pay or to give security for 23 fees and costs; (B) claims an entitlement to redress; and (C) states the issues that the party intends 24 to present on appeal.”). Furthermore, “[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial 25 court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.”

An appeal is in good faith where it 26 seeks review of any issue that is nonfrivolous. Hooker v. American Airlines,

, 1092 27 (9th Cir. 2002). An issue is frivolous if it has “no arguable basis in fact or law.” O'Loughlin v. 1 Although Plaintiff shows indigency, Plaintiff fails to identify any issue intended for appeal. 2 Page 1 of Form 4 directs Plaintiff to state any issues for the appeal, which Plaintiff has left blank. 3 Because Plaintiff has not articulated any basis as to how this Court erred, the Court finds that his 4 appeal has no arguable basis in fact or law and is thus frivolous. 5 Moreover, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was dismissed because Plaintiff failed to meet 6 her initial prima facie burden to establish personal jurisdiction. See Docket No. 31. The 7 Amended Complaint contained no fact that would establish personal jurisdiction over Defendant, 8 and Plaintiff did not file an opposition within the timeframe provided for by the Civil Local Rules. 9 See Docket No. 16. When the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause and respond to Defendant’s 10 motion, Plaintiff offered a single sentence in response to the personal jurisdiction issue: “This 11 Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant[.]” Docket No. 16, 28. Thereafter, Plaintiff 12 was granted an extension to address her case after reaching out to an attorney but again failed to 13 file any brief. Docket No. 29–30. Therefore, even considering this issue, it is frivolous as it lacks 14 any arguable basis in fact or law. 15 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 16 on appeal. This order disposes of Docket No. 35. 17 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(4), the Court orders the Clerk of the 18 Court to immediately notify the parties and the Ninth Circuit of this order. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 Dated: February 23, 2022 23 24 ______________________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN 25 United States District Judge 26 27