Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff Javanna R. Greer, proceeding pro se, filed this civil action in the Eastern District of California. The case was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial matters pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). On September 22, 2026, the district judge adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss the case for lack of federal jurisdiction. Greer, who had paid the filing fee to proceed in district court, subsequently filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal (ECF No. 31).
The magistrate judge's findings and recommendations address only the pending IFP motion on appeal. The document notes that Greer submitted the district court's IFP form and simply wrote "appeal" on it, rather than completing the separate, more detailed affidavit required for appellate IFP status. The magistrate judge identifies this as a procedural deficiency warranting denial without prejudice.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge recommends that the motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (ECF No. 31) be denied without prejudice for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24. The court explains that IFP on appeal requires different information than IFP at the district court level. Specifically, Rule 24 mandates that a moving party attach an affidavit that: (A) shows in the detail prescribed by Form 4 of the Appendix of Forms the party's inability to pay or to give security for fees and costs; (B) claims an entitlement to redress; and (C) states the issues that the party intends to present on appeal.
The court provides the Ninth Circuit's Form 4 link for the correct form. The findings and recommendations are submitted to the assigned district judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The plaintiff has 21 days after service to file written objections captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations" under Local Rule 304(d), and is advised that failure to object may waive the right to appeal the district court's order, citing Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
Key Takeaways
- A district court IFP form cannot be used for an appeal by simply writing "appeal" on it; Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24 requires a separate, detailed affidavit on the prescribed Form 4.
- The appellate IFP affidavit must demonstrate inability to pay fees and costs, claim entitlement to redress, and specify the issues intended for appeal.
- Denial without prejudice allows the plaintiff to refile a compliant motion using the correct Ninth Circuit Form 4.
- Objections to a magistrate judge's findings and recommendations must be filed within 21 days to preserve appellate rights, per Martinez v. Ylst.
Why It Matters
This routine procedural ruling illustrates the distinct requirements for in forma pauperis status at the appellate level versus the district court level. It serves as a practical reminder for pro se litigants and practitioners that compliance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24 is mandatory and that the Ninth Circuit provides a specific form (Form 4) that must be used. The decision also reinforces the procedural consequences of failing to object to a magistrate judge's findings and recommendations within the prescribed timeframe.
The ruling underscores the importance of using the correct form for each stage of litigation. A litigant who successfully obtained IFP status in the district court cannot simply annotate that form for appellate purposes; the appellate rules impose distinct and more detailed disclosure obligations. This distinction is particularly significant for pro se litigants, who may not appreciate that the appellate court requires a fresh showing of indigency and a statement of the issues to be raised on appeal. By denying the motion without prejudice, the magistrate judge preserves the plaintiff's ability to cure the deficiency and pursue the appeal, while also ensuring that the appellate court receives the information necessary to evaluate the IFP request under Rule 24.