Chan v. Bacdayan et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
YU HIN CHAN 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 25-1959
KAREN MAY BACDAYAN, ET AL. 	SECTION “R”
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is pro se plaintiff Yu Hin Chan’s motion to proceed in
forma pauperis on appeal with the Fifth Circuit. 1 For the reasons that follow,
the Court denies Chan’s motion.
A claimant may proceed with an appeal in forma pauperis if she meets
three requirements. 	First, the claimant must submit “an affidavit that
includes a statement . . . that [she] is unable to pay such fees or give security
therefor.” 	28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). 	Based on this information, the district
court must determine whether the costs of appeal would cause an undue
financial hardship. See Prows v. Kastner, 842 F.2d 138, 140 (5th Cir. 1998).
Second, the claimant’s affidavit must “state[] the issues that the party
intends to present on appeal.” Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(C); accord 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(1) (“Such affidavit shall state the nature of the . . . appeal and
1 	R. Doc. 10.
Case 2:25-cv-01959-SSV Document 11 Filed 03/31/26 Page 1 of 3

2
affiant’s belief that the person is entitled to redress.”). Third, the claimant’s
appeal must be “taken in good faith.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P.
24(a)(4)(B). 	“Good faith is demonstrated when a party seeks appellate
review of any issue ‘not frivolous.’” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th
Cir. 1983) (citing Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962)). An
issue is not frivolous if it involves “legal points arguable on their merits.” Id.
The Court pretermits discussion of Chan’s failure to provide fulsome
responses to all questions necessary to make a reasoned decision on whether
the costs of appeal would cause her financial hardship as her intended appeal
is frivolous. Plaintiff states that her issue on appeal is that “lower court erred
in dismissal.” 2 	This claim is conclusory and fails to identify any defect
rendering the judgment contrary to the law and evidence. 	See Chalmers v.
Ridge, 100 F. App’x 961, 963 (5th Cir. 2004) (affirming district court’s
finding that appeal was not taken in good faith and noting “[a]lthough we
apply less stringent standards to parties proceeding pro se[,] . . . pro se
parties 	must 	still 	brief 	the 	issues 	and 	reasonably 	comply 	with 	the
requirements of Fed. R. [App.] P. 28”); see also Spearman v. Collins, 500 F.
App’x 742, 744 (10th Cir. 2012) (finding appeal was not taken in good faith
when the appellant “ma[de] only conclusory, vague and unsubstantiated”
2 	R. Doc. 10.
Case 2:25-cv-01959-SSV Document 11 Filed 03/31/26 Page 2 of 3

3
assignments of error). The Court finds that Chan has failed to identify a
nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Her intended appeal is therefore not “taken in
good faith,” and the Court must deny her motion to proceed in forma
pauperis on appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(4)(B).
Accordingly, Chan’s motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis is
DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, th 31st	is _____ day of March, 2026.
_____________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-01959-SSV Document 11 Filed 03/31/26 Page 3 of 3