Greenfield v. Gardner, No. 2:2021mc00593 - Document 2 (D. Idaho 2021)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER by Christina J Greenfield. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motions to appeal in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (Dkt. 1 in 2:21-mc-00564-BLW & Dkt. 1 in 2:21-mc-00593-BLW) are DENIED. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (kt)

Download PDF

Greenfield v. Gardner Doc. 2 Case 2:21-mc-00593-BLW Document 2 Filed 08/05/21 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO CHRISTINA GREENFIELD, Case Nos. 2:21-mc-00564-BLW 2:21-mc-00593-BLW Appellant, Bk. No. 19-20785-NGH v. BAP Nos. ID-21-1095 ID-21-1096 DAVID P. GARDNER, Chapter 7 Trustee, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS Appellee. Before the Court are Christina Greenfield’s motions to appeal in forma pauperis from orders issued by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Idaho. See Dkt. 1 in 2:21-mc-00564-BLW; Dkt. 1 in 2:21-mc-00593-BLW. For the foregoing reasons, the motions will be denied. BACKGROUND Ms. Greenfield filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2019. Chapter 7 trustee David Gardner filed motions for an order approving the sale of real property and an application for compensation of realtor, which Ms. Greenfield opposed. The Bankruptcy Court granted Mr. Gardner’s motions. Ms. Greenfield appealed and asked the Bankruptcy Court for fee waivers and in forma pauperis status, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1930. See Dkt. 1-2 in 2:21-mc-00564-BLW. The Bankruptcy Court also overruled Ms. Greenfield’s objection to a proof of claim filed by Eric and Rosalynd Wurmlinger. On June 28, 2021, Ms. Greenfield MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS - 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:21-mc-00593-BLW Document 2 Filed 08/05/21 Page 2 of 3 appealed that order and again requested in forma pauperis status. See Dkt. 1-1 in 2:21mc-00593-BLW. In both cases, the Bankruptcy Court denied the requests for waiver under § 1930 and referred the § 1915 in forma pauperis requests to this Court. See Dkt. 1-2 & 1-3 in 2:21-mc-00564-BLW; Dkt. 1-1 & 1-2 in 2:21-mc-00593-BLW. Ms. Greenfield also requested in forma pauperis status in the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, which referred her application to this Court as well. See Dkt. 2 in 2:21-mc-00564-BLW. DISCUSSION The in forma pauperis statute permits a court of the United States to “authorize the commencement, prosecution, or defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal, or appeal therein, without prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit [showing an inability to pay].” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). However, even if a party is unable to pay the fee, an appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the court certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). “[T]o [appeal] in bad faith means merely to [appeal] on the basis of a frivolous claim, which is to say a claim that no reasonable person could suppose to have any merit.” Lee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025, 1026 (7th Cir. 2000). Having reviewed the record surrounding the bankruptcy proceedings, this Court finds that Ms. Greenfield’s appeals are not taken in good faith. Therefore, regardless of her ability to pay, she is not entitled to in forma pauperis status on appeal. The Bankruptcy Court overruled Ms. Greenfield’s objections both on the merits and for lack of standing. Debtors lack appellate standing when they do not face an MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS - 2 Case 2:21-mc-00593-BLW Document 2 Filed 08/05/21 Page 3 of 3 adverse and pecuniary effect. An-Tze Cheng v. K&S Diversified Invs. (In re Cheng), 308 B.R. 448, 454 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2004) aff’d, 160 F. App’x 644 (9th Cir. 2005). Ms. Greenfield has failed to present any evidence showing a reasonable possibility that the sale would result in a surplus in which she would have any pecuniary interest. Thus, she cannot show any injury from the Bankruptcy Court’s orders. See id. (“A debtor, in its individual capacity, lacks standing to object unless it demonstrates that it would be ‘injured in fact’ by the allowance of the claim.”); compare In re Pena, 974 F.3d 934, 938 (9th Cir. 2020) (“The fact that [the debtor’s] Chapter 7 estate did not result in a surplus does not address his central claim here: that the unclaimed funds are not part of the estate because they were abandoned by the trustee.”). Therefore, Ms. Greenfield lacks standing to appeal. The law is clear on the standing question, and Ms. Greenfield’s appeals are plainly without merit. Accordingly, this Court finds that the appeals are not taken in good faith. ORDER IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions to appeal in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (Dkt. 1 in 2:21-mc-00564-BLW & Dkt. 1 in 2:21-mc-00593-BLW) are DENIED. DATED: August 5, 2021 _________________________ B. Lynn Winmill U.S. District Court Judge MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS - 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.