Manaole, et al v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs, et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI‘I
DE MONT KALAI MANAOLE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS, et
al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 26-cv-00029-DKW-KJM
ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO
PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS ON APPEAL1
On May 18, 2026, pro se Plaintiffs De Mont Kalai Manaole, Regina Nani
Peterson, and Dana Newman filed a Notice of Appeal of this Court’s Orders granting
dismissal and denying reconsideration. Dkt. No. 101. On the same day, Plaintiffs
moved for in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status on appeal. Dkt. No. 100. For the reasons
set forth below, Plaintiffs’ IFP motion is DENIED.
DISCUSSION
Motions to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are governed by Federal Rule
of Appellate Procedure 24(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). 	As relevant here, Rule
24(a)(1) provides that:
1 Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d), the Court finds these matters suitable for disposition without a
hearing.
Case 1:26-cv-00029-DKW-KJM Document 102 Filed 05/19/26 Page 1 of 3
PageID.<pageID>

- 2 -
Except as stated in Rule 24(a)(3), a party to a district-court action who
desires to appeal in forma pauperis must file a motion in the district
court. The party must attach an affidavit that:
(a) shows in the detail prescribed by Form 4 of the Appendix of Forms
the party’s inability to pay or to give security for fees and costs;
(b) claims an entitlement to redress; and
(c) states the issues that the party intends to present on appeal.
Fed.R.App.P. 24(a)(1).
Here, Plaintiffs have failed to meet the requirements of Rule 24(a)(1) because
they have neither used Form 4 nor otherwise stated their inability to pay with
sufficient specificity. 	Rather than use the Court-provided Form 4, Plaintiffs have
apparently utilized “Premiere Paralegal Services” to create their own application
which does not correspond to Rule 24(a)(1). 	Dkt. No. 100 at 1–2. 	The affidavits
attached to the application are similarly self-made and not compliant with the
Court’s standards. Dkt. Nos. 100-1, 100-2, 100-3. The affidavits include sections
for some of the required information, such as income or assets, but lack others, like
taxes or spousal income.
Moreover, 	the 	affidavits 	are 	lacking 	even 	with 	respect 	to 	the 	limited
information Plaintiffs specified. 	For example, the affidavit of De Mont Kalai
Manaole claims that his gross monthly income is spelled out in a separate exhibit,
but no separate exhibit was provided. Dkt. No. 100-1 at 1. The affidavit of Dana
Newman contains no information at all: the form has been signed but otherwise left
Case 1:26-cv-00029-DKW-KJM Document 102 Filed 05/19/26 Page 2 of 3
PageID.<pageID>

- 3 -
blank. Dkt. No. 100-3. Plaintiffs, in short, have failed to answer even the questions
they deemed important enough to include in their makeshift applications.
The Court needs a complete picture of Plaintiffs’ financial standing to decide
their entitlement to assistance. 	Due to Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with Rule
24(a)(1), the Court is unable to properly assess their ability to pay the requisite fees.
Their IFP motion 	must, therefore, be denied without 	prejudice to 	filing 	an
application that complies with the above-mentioned rules.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiffs’ IFP motion, Dkt. No. 100, is
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 19, 2026 at Honolulu, Hawai‘i.
De Mont Kalai Manaole, et al vs. Office of Hawaiian Affairs, et al; Civil No 26-
00029 DKW-KJM; ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS ON APPEAL
_______________________________
Derrick K. Watson
Chief United States District Judge
/s/ Derrick K. Watson
Case 1:26-cv-00029-DKW-KJM Document 102 Filed 05/19/26 Page 3 of 3
PageID.<pageID>