1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MARIA C. LUNA, Case No. 20-cv-08097-EMC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 9 v. APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL; (2) 10 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION CORRECTIONS AND TO APPOINT COUNSEL; AND (3) 11 REHABILITATION, et al., DENYING DEFENDANTS’ BILL OF COSTS 12 Defendants. Docket Nos. 50, 52, 53 13 14 15 Plaintiff Maria Luna brought an employment discrimination suit against Defendants 16 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and California Medical Facility in 17 Vacaville. On April 28, 2022, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. See 18 Docket No. 48. Shortly after, Defendants submitted a Bill of Costs seeking an award totaling 19 $4335.40. Docket No. 50 at 2. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States 20 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Docket No. 51. Plaintiff asks the Court for leave to 21 appeal in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and appoint counsel. Docket Nos. 52, 53. 22 A. Motion for Leave to Appeal IFP 23 Individuals must pay a $505.00 filing fee to commence an appeal in the Court of Appeals. 24 A party who is unable to pay the fees may file a motion in the district court for leave to appeal IFP 25 with an affidavit that: “(A) shows in the detail prescribed by Form 4 of the Appendix of Forms the 26 party’s inability to pay or to give security for fees and costs; (B) claims an entitlement to redress; 27 and (C) states the issues that the party intends to present on appeal.” Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1); 28 1 Having evaluated Plaintiff’s financial circumstances detailed in Form 4, the Court notes 2 that her expenses far outweigh her income. See Docket No. 52 at 2, 6. Her only source of income 3 is child support and disability payments. Id. Therefore, the Court finds that she has satisfied the 4 economic eligibility requirement to proceed IFP. 5 Next, even if an applicant meets the economic requirements for IFP status, the Court may 6 not grant an application to proceed IFP if the appeal is “not taken in good faith.”

1915(a)(3). In the absence of some evident improper motive, the applicant’s good faith is 8 established by the presentation of any issue that is not plainly frivolous. Ellis v. United States, 356

, 674 (1958); accord Hooker v. American Airlines,

(9th Cir. 2002). 10 In the instant case, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s appeal is taken in good faith and that her claim 11 is non-frivolous. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP on 12 appeal. 13 B. Motion for Appointment of Counsel 14 Concurrently with her IFP motion, Plaintiff submits a motion in which she requests that the 15 Court appoint counsel for her. A motion to appoint counsel pursuant to

(e)(1) 16 necessarily depends upon Plaintiff’s ability to proceed IFP. See

(e)(1) (“The 17 court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.”). “In other 18 words, in order to be successful, such a motion requires that the plaintiff has been determined 19 eligible to proceed IFP due to indigence.” Napper v. San Diego Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, No. 21-CV- 20 359 JLS (BLM),

, at *3 (S.D. Cal. June 14, 2021). Whether to grant a motion 21 to appoint counsel is “within the sound discretion of the trial court[.]” Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of 22 Am.,

, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). 23 This Court has previously appointed pro bono counsel for Plaintiff, and Plaintiff is eligible 24 to proceed IFP. See Docket No. 29. As such, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to appoint 25 counsel. 26 C. Bill of Costs 27 Defendants submit a Bill of Costs for an award totaling $4335.40, which Plaintiff objects. 1 presumption that costs other than attorney’s fees are generally allowed to the prevailing party, it 2 “vests in the district court discretion to refuse to award costs.” Escriba v. Foster Poultry Farms, 3 Inc.,

, 1247–48 (9th Cir. 2014) (citations omitted). Some reasons for denying costs 4 include the substantial public importance of the case, the closeness and difficulty of the issues in 5 the case, the chilling effect on future similar actions, the plaintiff’s limited financial resources, and 6 the economic disparity between the parties.

7 “Costs are properly denied when a plaintiff would be rendered indigent should she be 8 forced to pay the amount assessed.”

(quotation marks and citation omitted). As 9 discussed above, Plaintiff is currently unemployed and does not have sufficient resources to pay 10 the Bill of Costs. Considering Plaintiff’s limited financial resources and the economic disparity 11 between the parties, Defendants’ Bill of Costs is DENIED. 12 D. Conclusion 13 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motions to appeal IFP and 14 appoint counsel and DENIES Defendants’ Bill of Costs. 15 This order disposes of Docket Nos. 50, 52, and 53. 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 Dated: June 15, 2022 20 21 ______________________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27