Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00776/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00776-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SONNY WHITTED, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 06-000776-KD-B

RICHARD ROBERTS, :

Defendant. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Sonny Whitted’s

Motion for Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 37). Whitted,

an Alabama prisoner proceedings pro se, filed this action alleging

various violations under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. In his Complaint,

Whitted alleged a constitutional deprivation arising out of a

physical confrontation between himself and former Correctional

Officer Richard Roberts that took place on September 18, 2006, in

the hospital ward of Holman Correctional Facility. (Doc. 4).

Whitted, who was recuperating from shoulder surgery, alleges that

Defendant Roberts used excessive force when he allegedly grabbed

Whitted’s right wrist in an attempt to handcuff Whitted behind his

back. Whitted further alleges that Defendant denied him medical care

after the incident. (Docs. 4, 31). 

Based upon a careful review of the record, the undersigned, on

February 18, 2010, issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 32).

In the report, the undersigned found that Whitted’s allegations were

Case 1:06-cv-00776-KD-B Document 40 Filed 04/27/10 Page 1 of 5
2

not sufficient to support his claim of excessive force. The

undersigned also determined that Whitted failed to present facts

which suggest that Defendant was deliberately indifferent to

Whitted’s medical needs following his forced removal from the prison

infirmary on September 18, 2006. The evidence instead demonstrated

that the prison staff, with the aid of a private physician,

responded to the many medical concerns voiced by Whitted.

Accordingly, the undersigned recommended the dismissal of Whitted’s

Complaint. On March 12, 2010, District Judge Dubose entered an

Order adopting the Report and Recommendation, and a Judgment

dismissing Whitted’s Complaint. (Docs. 34, 35). On April 12, 2010,

Whitted filed the instant Motion for Leave to Appeal In Forma

Pauperis (Doc. 37). 

An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court

certifies, either before or after the notice of appeal is filed,

that the appeal is not taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3);

FED. R. APP. P. 24(a)(3). A party demonstrates good faith by seeking

appellate review of any issue that is not frivolous when judged

under an objective standard. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S.

438, 445, 82 S. Ct. 917, 8 L. Ed. 2d 21 (1962); Busch v. County of

Volusia, 189 F.R.D. 687, 691 (M.D. Fla. 1999); United States v.

Wilson, 707 F. Supp. 1582, 1583 (M.D. Ga. 1989), aff'd., 896 F.2d

558 (11th Cir. 1990). An issue is frivolous when it appears that the

legal theories are “indisputably meritless.” See Neitzke v.

Case 1:06-cv-00776-KD-B Document 40 Filed 04/27/10 Page 2 of 5
3

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 104 L. Ed. 2d 338

(1989); Carroll v. Gross, 984 F.2d 392, 393 (11th Cir. 1993). Or,

stated another way, an in forma pauperis action is frivolous, and

thus not brought in good faith, if it is “without arguable merit

either in law or fact.” Napier v. Preslicka, 314 F.3d 528, 531 (11th

Cir. 2002); Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2001).

“Arguable means capable of being convincingly argued.” Sun v.

Forrester, 939 F.2d 924, 925 (11th Cir. 1991) (per curiam). The

undersigned finds, for the reasons set forth in the Report and

Recommendation (Doc. 32), that the issues Whitted seeks to raise on

appeal, are “without arguable merit either in law or fact,” and are

therefore not brought in good faith. Accordingly, the undersigned

recommends that Whitted’s Motion for Leave to Appeal In Forma

Pauperis (Doc. 37) be denied. 

The attached sheet contains important information regarding

objections to the Report and Recommendation.

DONE this 27th day of April, 2010.

 /S/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00776-KD-B Document 40 Filed 04/27/10 Page 3 of 5
 1

The Court’s Local rules are being amended to reflect the new

computations of time as set out in the amendments to the Federal

Rules of Practice and Procedure, effective December 1, 2009.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS AND 

RESPONSIBILITIES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION, AND

FINDINGS CONCERNING NEED FOR TRANSCRIPT

l. Objection. Any party who objects to this recommendation, or

anything in it, must, within fourteen (14) days of the date of

service of this document, file specific written objections with the

Clerk of this Court. Failure to do so will bar a de novo

determination by the district judge of anything in the

recommendation and will bar an attack, on appeal, of the factual

findings of the Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C);

Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736, 738 (11th Cir. 1988); Nettles v.

Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. Unit B, 1982)(en banc). The

procedure for challenging the findings and recommendations of the

Magistrate Judge is set out in more detail in SD ALA LR 72.4 (June

1, 1997), which provides that:

A party may object to a recommendation entered by a

magistrate judge in a dispositive matter, that is, a

matter excepted by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), by filing a

“Statement of Objection to Magistrate Judge’s

Recommendation” within ten days1 after being served with

a copy of the recommendation, unless a different time is

established by order. The statement of objection shall

specify those portions of the recommendation to which

objection is made and the basis for the objection. The

objecting party shall submit to the district judge, at

the time of filing the objection, a brief setting forth

the party’s arguments that the magistrate judge’s

recommendation should be reviewed de novo and a different

disposition made. It is insufficient to submit only a

copy of the original brief submitted to the magistrate

judge, although a copy of the original brief may be

submitted or referred to and incorporated into the brief

in support of the objection. Failure to submit a brief

in support of the objection may be deemed an abandonment

of the objection. 

A magistrate judge's recommendation cannot be appealed to a

Court of Appeals; only the district judge's order or judgment can

be appealed.

2. Transcript (applicable Where Proceedings Tape Recorded).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and FED.R.CIV.P. 72(b), the Magistrate

Case 1:06-cv-00776-KD-B Document 40 Filed 04/27/10 Page 4 of 5
5

Judge finds that the tapes and original records in this case are

adequate for purposes of review. Any party planning to object to

this recommendation, but unable to pay the fee for a transcript, is

advised that a judicial determination that transcription is

necessary is required before the United States will pay the cost of

the transcript.

Case 1:06-cv-00776-KD-B Document 40 Filed 04/27/10 Page 5 of 5