Bowen v. Warfield

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Barbara Ann Bowen,
Appellant,
v.
Lawrence Warfield,
Appellee.
No. CV-25-04608-PHX-JJT
ORDER
This appeal remains unperfected on account of myriad procedural mishaps and
certain misrepresentations by pro se Appellant Barbara Ann Bowen.
After the Court first warned Appellant that defects in the appeal prevented the Court
from considering it (Doc. 15), Appellant filed a signed Notice with the Court that she had
complied with all appellate requirements, including because she “filed and/or mailed to the
United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona” the “[a]pplicable appellate and
transcript-related fees payable to both the Bankruptcy Court and the United States District
Court,” which statement she placed in bold print in the Notice. (Doc. 16 at 1.) Appellant
never thereafter informed the Court that she had made a material misrepresentation to the
Court and that she had in fact not paid the “applicable appellate and transcript-related fees.”
Subsequently, she filed a “Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis,” which the Court
denied because it contradicted her signed statement that she had paid the applicable fees.
(Doc. 23.) She again did not file anything with the Court to suggest it was wrong in taking
her first statement at face value.
Case 2:25-cv-04608-JJT Document 29 Filed 04/02/26 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Now, she has filed yet another contradictory motion to request that the transcripts
be prepared at government expense under 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) because she cannot afford to
pay for them. This again is inconsistent with her initial statement to the Court that she had
paid the applicable transcript-related fees, and she again does not attempt to correct her
initial statement.
It is apparent to the Court that Appellant did indeed misrepresent to the Court that
she had paid the applicable fees, including for the transcripts required for appellate review,
in order to try to convince the Court that this appeal is perfected. (Doc. 16.) Such a lack of
candor is ordinarily met by this Court with sanctions. The situation Appellant has placed
her own appeal in is of her own making, made worse by the fact that the Court stated in its
previous Order that it understood from her representations that she had paid the applicable
filing and transcript-related fees (Doc. 23), and she still has yet to explain to the Court that
what she stated to the Court was not true or why she made that statement in a signed paper
filed with the Court. The Court can only glean from the recent filings (Docs. 25, 27) that
Appellant has not paid for the required transcripts (nor perhaps the filing fee), as she said
she had, and she now asks the United States to do so.
The statute Appellant makes her request under, 28 U.S.C. § 753(f), does authorize
the United States to pay the transcript fees if the Court has authorized a party to proceed in
forma pauperis (IFP) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The Court has made no such authorization
here.1 The form for an IFP application in this Court can be found on the Court’s website,
www.azd.uscourts.gov, under “Rules, General Orders & Forms,” then “Forms,” then Form
AO 239. The Court will permit Appellant one last opportunity to honestly explain to the
Court the status of payment of the filing fee and transcript fees and, as appropriate, file an
IFP application using the Court’s Form AO 239.
Pursuant to any request by Appellant to proceed IFP in this matter, under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2), the Court must dismiss the appeal if it finds, among other things, that it is
frivolous or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. To that end, the Court
1 The Court denied Appellant’s former attempt to proceed IFP because she had told the
Court she paid all applicable fees. (Docs. 21, 23.)
Case 2:25-cv-04608-JJT Document 29 Filed 04/02/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
notes again that, as the Trustee has pointed out to the Court (Doc. 19 at 2–3), Appellant
filed the present putative appeal only in the case before the Bankruptcy Court in which
Bankruptcy Judge Collins denied her request for discharge, and not the case in which Judge
Collins denied the homestead exemption claimed by Appellant. (See Doc. 16.) Thus, only
the former ruling would be before this Court even if the appeal had been perfected, and the
time to appeal the latter ruling has passed. As a result, the Court finds that the portion of
Appellant’s putative appeal challenging “[t]he denial of Appellant’s homestead
exemption,” as expressed in her Notice of Appeal (Doc. 1 at 5), is frivolous.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying Appellant’s Motion for Preparation of
Transcript at Government Expense Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (Doc. 25).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellant may file an Application to Proceed
In Forma Pauperis using the Court’s Form AO 239 by April 10, 2026. By the same date,
Appellant shall file a Notice honestly stating whether she has paid the applicable filing and
transcript-related fees to the Court and, if not, explaining her prior statement to the Court
(Doc. 16) that she had already paid the applicable filing and transcript-related fees. Failure
to timely comply will result in dismissal of this appeal.
Dated this 1st day of April, 2026.
Honorable John J. Tuchi
United States District Judge
Case 2:25-cv-04608-JJT Document 29 Filed 04/02/26 Page 3 of 3