Opinion
Bankr. Case No. 04-17210, Dist. Ct. Case No. 1:06-CV-0225 (LEK).
September 26, 2006
DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff/Appellant George Hom ("Appellant" or "Hom") filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") in the above-captioned matter on June 12, 2006. See IFP Applic. (Dkt. No. 11). After review, however, this Court determined that the IFP Application was incomplete as submitted, and denied the application without prejudice to renewal upon the re-filing of a properly completed application containing all requested and required information. See June 15, 2006 Order (Dkt. No. 12). On July 5, 2006, a Revised IFP Application was filed by Appellant Hom. See Revised IFP Applic. (Dkt. No. 13).
The revised submission provides this Court with all of the requested and required information on the application form, see id., such that this Court may now make a finding as to Appellant's current financial status. After reviewing Appellant's Revised Application and the file, the Court finds that Hom may properly proceed with this matter in forma pauperis.
Therefore, it is hereby
ORDERED, that Appellant Hom's Revised Application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 13) is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on all parties.
Plaintiff should note that although his in forma pauperis application has been granted, he will still be required to pay fees that he may incur in this action, including copying and/or witness fees.