1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ARLETTE L. RIVERA, Case No.: 22cv1580-CAB-BGS

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 13 v. LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 SCOTT W. BRAY, in his official capacity

as Deputy Director of Naval Intelligence, 15 [Doc. No. 8] Defendant. 16 17 18 19 This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma 20 pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal. [Doc. No. 8.] For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is 21 denied. 22 “An affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient where it alleges that the 23 affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo v. 24 Applebees,

(9th Cir. 2015). “Nonetheless, a plaintiff seeking IFP 25 status must allege poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.”

(internal 26 quotation marks omitted). According to her affidavit, Plaintiff is currently employed and 27 has a gross monthly pay of $2,206.36 per month, while her expenses are only $1,669.00 28 per month. Further, the affidavit appears to indicate that Plaintiff intends to pay the filing 1 on appeal and merely filed this motion in an effort to delay that payment until she 2 || receives her paycheck at the end of this month. [Doc. No. 8 at 5.] Based on the information 3 || provided, the court is not persuaded that Plaintiff lacks the ability to pay the filing fee and 4 || “still afford the necessities of life.’ Escobedo,

. 5 In addition, Plaintiff's appeal is not taken in good faith pursuant to

|| 1915(a)(3). See Gardner v. Pogue,

(9th Cir. 1977) (noting that indigent 7 || appellant is permitted to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal only if appeal would not be 8 ||frivolous). Plaintiff's complaint is frivolous, and the exact nature of Plaintiff's appeal of 9 || the dismissal of the complaint is not clear because she did not oppose Defendant’s motion 10 |/to dismiss. Thus, even if Plaintiff had demonstrated the requisite poverty to proceed IFP, 11 motion would not be granted. 12 Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to proceed IFP on appeal [Doc. No. 28] is DENIED. 13 It is SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: January 23, 2023 (GR 15 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28