Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_04-cv-05205/USCOURTS-arwd-5_04-cv-05205-10/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

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

ROBERT WILLIAM AVERY PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 04-5205

SHERIFF KEITH FERGUSON; CAPTAIN 

HUNTER PETRAY; SGT. JOHNSON; 

LT. GENE HENDRICKS; SGT. CLIFFORD;

SGT. DAUGHERTY; DEPUTY HUBBS; 

DEPUTY EFRAM; DEPUTY RAHN; 

DEPUTY TOMLIN; and DEPUTY ADAMS DEFENDANTS

O R D E R

Now on this 3d day of July, 2007, come on for consideration the

Report And Recommendation Of The Magistrate Judge (document #116)

having to do with plaintiff's Application To Proceed Without

Prepayment Of Fees (document #114), and plaintiff's Response To

Report & Recommendation Of The Magistrate Judge (document #118), and

from said documents, and other matters appearing, the Court finds

and orders as follows:

1. On October 25, 2006, the Court entered an Order adopting

the October 5, 2006, Report And Recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge, and dismissing this case. No timely notice of appeal was

filed from that Order, but on March 22, 2007, plaintiff filed a

Motion Te Reopen (document #110), thus indicating that he had

received notice of the October 25, 2006, Order by that date. 

The Motion to Reopen was denied by Order dated April 16, 2007,

and plaintiff's Notice Of Appeal was filed on May 16, 2007.

2. The Magistrate Judge -- analyzing the Notice Of Appeal as

relating to the Order adopting the Report And Recommendation --

Case 5:04-cv-05205-JLH Document 119 Filed 07/03/07 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

reported that none of the bases in F.R.A.P. 4(a) for extending the

time for appeal exist in this case. For that reason, the Magistrate

Judge correctly reported that the appeal was not taken in good

faith, and recommended that in forma pauperis status be denied.

Plaintiff offers nothing that would alter the analysis of the

Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff's objections will, therefore, be

overruled, and the Report And Recommendations will be adopted in

toto. 

3. The Court has also considered whether plaintiff's Notice

Of Appeal could be considered an appeal solely from the Court's

Order refusing to reopen the case, which was dated April 16, 2007.

As to that Order, an appeal would be timely, and if the Order is

appealable, the Court must consider whether in forma pauperis is

appropriate.

28 U.S.C. §1291 gives courts of appeal "jurisdiction of appeals

from all final decisions of the district courts of the United

States. . . ." The case law, such as it is, suggests that an order

denying a motion to reopen is an appealable order. See, e.g., James

v. Outlaw, 142 Fed.Appx. 274 (8th Cir. 2005). 

It does not necessarily follow, however, that an appeal of this

Court's Order refusing to reopen the case is a good faith appeal.

Plaintiff's contentions for why the case should be reopened are

multiple: he did not get his mail due to a clerical error at the

post office; he was homeless and thus could not receive mail; he

was falsely arrested to keep him from being able to prosecute his

Case 5:04-cv-05205-JLH Document 119 Filed 07/03/07 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
-3-

case; he had no access to legal materials and was unaware of the

time limits for filing an appeal; he mailed his Notice Of Appeal on

March 9 or 10, but cannot control the inmate mail system; and that

it would be "a grave injustice" for his case to go untried merely

because he is poor.

These excuses are all variants on plaintiff's contention that

he should be allowed to appeal the Court's dismissal of his case in

spite of his failure to file a timely notice of appeal. As such,

the Court believes they would be unavailing on appeal. The Supreme

Court has recently squarely held that "the timely filing of a notice

of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement." Bowles

v. Russell, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 2366 (2007)(finding untimely the notice

of appeal filed by a litigant who relied upon an order of the

District Court specifying an incorrect deadline for filing a notice

of appeal).

An 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). For the reasons stated, this Court so

certifies.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report And Recommendation Of

The Magistrate Judge (document #116) is adopted in toto, and

plaintiff's Application To Proceed Without Prepayment Of Fees

(document #114) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the objections contained in

plaintiff's Response To Report & Recommendation Of The Magistrate

Case 5:04-cv-05205-JLH Document 119 Filed 07/03/07 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
-4-

Judge (document #118) are overruled.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court certifies that

plaintiff's appeal in this matter is not taken in good faith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/Jimm Larry Hendren 

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:04-cv-05205-JLH Document 119 Filed 07/03/07 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>