Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00626/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00626-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

 Plaintiffs rely upon 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4) as support for their “notice” (doc. 13, p. 7). 

However, that code section does not apply to plaintiffs because it applies to prisoners who have

“no assets and no means by which to pay the initial partial filing fee.” Id. Plaintiffs affidavit

indicates that they do have assets and income. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ORLANDO BETHEL, et al, )

)

Plaintiffs )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO 06-0626-KD-B

)

THE CITY OF DAPHNE, et al, )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs’ motion to proceed without prepayment of

fees in order to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal and plaintiffs’ “notice” to proceed without

prepayment of fees on appeal. (Docs. 10, 13). 1

A. Procedural history

Plaintiffs filed their complaint and first motion for leave to proceed without prepayment

of fees on October 4, 2006. (Docs. 1, 2). On October 6, 2006, Magistrate Judge Sonja F. Bivins

entered an order denying plaintiffs’ first motion and instructing them to file an appropriate in

forma pauperis form and affidavit or pay the filing fee by October 26, 2006. (Doc. 3). On

October 16, 2006, plaintiffs filed the appropriate form and affidavit and on October 19, 2006,

Magistrate Judge Bivins entered an order denying the motion and instructing the plaintiffs to pay

the filing fee on or before November 20, 2006. (Docs. 4, 5). On October 20, 2006, plaintiffs

filed an appeal of Magistrate Judge Bivins’ decision and on November 3, 2006, this court

Case 1:06-cv-00626-KD-B Document 14 Filed 12/27/06 Page 1 of 4
2

 Plaintiffs also filed a motion for reconsideration of this order. (Doc. 9). Although

plaintiffs raise conclusory arguments that the undersigned’s decision to affirm Magistrate Judge

Bivins’ order was arbitrary and erroneous and an abuse of discretion, the plaintiffs have not

presented any evidence of an intervening change in the controlling law, any evidence that new

evidence has been discovered since this court’s prior order was entered, or any evidence that the

decision to affirm was clearly erroneous or manifestly unjust. Gougler v. Sirius Products, Inc.,

370 F. Supp.2d 1185, 1189 (S.D. Ala. 2005) (citation omitted). For the foregoing reasons, the

motion for reconsideration (doc. 9) is DENIED. 

3

 Rule 24(a), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, provides in pertinent part that “(1)...

[a] party to a district-court action who desires to appeal in forma pauperis must file a motion in

the district court...[and] attach an affidavit that: (A) shows...the party’s inability to pay or give

security for the fees and costs; (B) claims an entitlement to redress; and (C) states the issues that

the party intends to present on appeal.” Id. Section (a)(2) entitled “Action on the Motion”,

states that if “the district court grants the motion, the party may proceed on appeal without

prepaying or giving security for fees and costs, unless a statute provides otherwise. If the district

court denies the motion, it must state its reasons in writing.” Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(2). 

2

entered an order denying the appeal and affirming the decision of Magistrate Judge Bivins.

(Docs. 6, 7). 

On November 11, 2006, plaintiffs filed their notice of interlocutory appeal as to this

court’s order of November 3, 2006. (Doc. 8). 2

 On November 20, 2006, plaintiffs filed their

motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of fees on appeal and on December 6, 2006,

filed their second motion entitled “Notice to proceed without prepayment of fees on appeal with

affidavit.” (Docs. 10, 13).

B. Analysis

In general, “[t]o proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, a litigant must be economically

eligible, and his appeal must not be frivolous.” Jackson v. Dallas Police Dep’t, 811 F.2d 260,

261 (5th Cir. 1986); see also Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.3 After

thorough review of plaintiffs’ motions and all relevant portions of the court file, the undersigned

finds that plaintiffs cannot satisfy the requirement that their appeal is not frivolous and thus, they

Case 1:06-cv-00626-KD-B Document 14 Filed 12/27/06 Page 2 of 4
3

are not entitled to for in forma pauperis status on appeal.

The law is clear that “[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court

certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); see also Busch v.

County of Volusia, 189 F.R.D. 687, 691 (M.D. Fla. 1999). An appeal is not taken in good faith if

it is plainly frivolous. United States v. Youngblood, 116 F.3d 1113, 1115 (5th Cir. 1997);

DeSantis v. United Technologies Corp., 15 F. Supp. 2d 1285, 1289 (M.D. Fla. 1998) (appeal is

not taken in good faith when it fails to “seek[] appellate review of any issue that is not

frivolous”), aff’d, 193 F.3d 522 (11th Cir. 1999); United States v. Durham, 130 F. Supp. 445

(D.C. D.C. 1955) ("good faith" means the existence of a substantial question or one which has

merit and is not frivolous); Sejeck v. Singer Mfg. Co., 113 F. Supp. 281 (D.C. N.J. 1953) ("in

good faith" means that points on which appeal is taken are reasonably arguable); United States v.

Gicinto, 114 F. Supp. 929 (W.D. Mo. 1953) (the application should be denied if the trial court is

of opinion that the appeal is frivolous, and without merit, and a futile proceeding); see generally

Napier v. Preslicka, 314 F.3d 528, 531 (11th Cir. 2002) (action is frivolous for § 1915 purposes

if it is without arguable merit either in law or in fact); Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th

Cir. 2001) (same).

Plaintiffs have filed an interlocutory appeal. Final judgment has not been entered in

regard to any of their claims. Facially, the order of November 3, 2006 is not final and

appealable. Plaintiffs have not requested certification under Rule 54(b), Fed.R.Civ.P. nor would

such a certification be appropriate in any event. Plaintiffs have not identified, and the Court is

unaware of, any colorable basis for the exercise of appellate jurisdiction at this time. See U.S.

S.E.C. v. Carrillo, 325 F.3d 1268, 1272 (11th Cir. 2003) (“If a party seeks to appeal a district

Case 1:06-cv-00626-KD-B Document 14 Filed 12/27/06 Page 3 of 4
4

court order that does not constitute a ‘final decision’ under § 1291 (and does not fall within an

exception to the final judgment rule), we must dismiss the case for lack of appellate

jurisdiction.”); Schoenfeld v. Babbitt, 168 F.3d 1257, 1265 (11th Cir. 1999) (“Absent the

application of some exception, this court only has appellate jurisdiction to hear appeals from

‘final decisions’ rendered by district courts.”); 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292. 

Since it is apparent that appellate jurisdiction is lacking over this interlocutory matter, the

undersigned concludes that plaintiffs’ appeal of the November 3, 2006 order is without arguable

merit as a matter of law. Therefore, the court finds that plaintiffs’ appeal is frivolous and that it

is not taken in good faith.

C. Conclusion

Because this court has certified that plaintiffs’ appeal is frivolous and thus not taken in

good faith, their motion to proceed without prepayment of fees on appeal and their notice to

proceed without prepayment of fees on appeal (docs. 10, 13) are both DENIED.

DONE this the 27th day of December, 2006. 

s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

KRISTI K. DuBOSE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-00626-KD-B Document 14 Filed 12/27/06 Page 4 of 4