Scottrade v. Davenport et al, No. 1:2011cv00003 - Document 387 (D. Mont. 2015)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER in re 382 MOTION for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis filed by Kristine Davenport. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED in response to the Ninth Circuits referral notice that Davenport's in forma pauperis status shall continue for this appeal. Signed by Judge Susan P. Watters on 5/11/2015. (adhoc Ninth Circuit, copy mailed to K. Davenport, C. Gibbons, K. Chabot) (ACL, )

Download PDF
Scottrade v. Davenport et al Doc. 387 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION FILED MAY 1 1 2015 Clefk. U.s . District of'•lrict Coo Bi//;ngM,,ontana rt SCOTTRADE, INC., an Arizona corporation, CV 11-03-BLG-SPW Plaintiff, OPINION and ORDER vs. KRISTINE DAVENPORT, individually, SHANE M. LEFEBER, individually, CHRISTOPHER GIBBONS, individually, KIMBERLY CHABOT, individually, PATRICIA FALLER, individually, Defendants. PATRICIA FALLER, individually, CHRISTOPHER GIBBONS, individually, KIMBERLY CHABOT, individually, SHANE M. LEFEBER, individually, Cross-Claimants, vs. KRISTINE DAVENPORT, indivi dually, Cross-Defendant. 1 Dockets.Justia.com On January 11, 2011, Plaintiff Kristine Davenport filed her complaint. (Doc. 1). This court granted summary judgment on all claims on June 5, 2012. (Doc. 268). On September 5, 2012, the court granted Davenport's request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. (Doc. 283). In its memorandum, the Ninth Circuit remanded for this court to determine the amount of attorneys' fees to which Patricia and Arnold Faller and Shane Lefeber were entitled to out of Davenport's share of James Lefeber's Scottrade funds. (Doc. 290). This court determined the attorney fee awards on April 10, 2015. (Docs. 366-68). On May 1, 2015, Davenport moved for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. (Doc. 382). She appealed on May 5, 2015. (Doc. 383). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal issued a Referral Notice to this court on May 6, 2015. (Doc. 385). The Referral Notice provides in part: This matter is referred to the district court for the limited purpose of determining whether in forma pauperis status should continue for this appeal or whether the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); see also Hooker v. American Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002) (revocation of in forma pauperis status is appropriate where district court finds the appeal to be frivolous). (Id.) While some of the issues in her affidavit are plainly frivolous, Davenport's appeal with respect to this court's orders regarding the Fallers and Lefeber's attorney fee awards is not plainly frivolous and so her in forma pauperis status must continue. Gilbert v. United States, 278 F.3d 61, 62 (9th Cir. 1960) (citing Ellis v. United States, 356 U.S. 674, 675 (1958); see also Hooker, 302 F.3d at 1092 2 (holding that in forma pauperis status must be authorized as a whole and not on a piecemeal basis). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, in response to the Ninth Circuit's referral notice (doc. 385) that Davenport's in forma pauperis status shall continue for this appeal. x -+-L DATED this day of May 2015. ~P.uJ~ /SUSANP. WATTERS United States District Judge 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.