Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_14-cv-01146/USCOURTS-almd-2_14-cv-01146-0/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

CHASE CARMEN HUNTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

JIM L. RIDLING, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

) 

)

)

)

CASE NO. 2:14-CV-1146-WKW

 [WO]

ORDER

Before the court is Plaintiff’s objection to the November 14, 2014 order of 

the Magistrate Judge and motion to appeal in forma pauperis. (Doc. # 14.) When 

Ms. Hunter filed this lawsuit, she also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis. (Doc. # 2.) On November 14, 2014, the Magistrate Judge denied Ms. 

Hunter’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on the grounds that her 

declaration revealed an average monthly income of $1,925 and equity totaling 

$150,000 in her home and other real property. (Doc. # 8.) Accordingly, the 

Magistrate Judge ordered Ms. Hunter to pay the required civil action filing fee on 

or before December 3, 2014, if she wished to prosecute the action. That deadline 

passed without a filing from Ms. Hunter, and on December 10, 2014, her action 

was dismissed without prejudice by court order. (Doc. # 10.)

Case 2:14-cv-01146-WKW-SRW Document 20 Filed 03/30/15 Page 1 of 3
2

As with all orders on nondispositive motions decided by a Magistrate Judge, 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) provides that, “[a] party may serve and file 

objections to the order within 14 days after being served with a copy.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 72(a). Ms. Hunter did not file the present objection within the time 

permitted by Rule 72(a), nor did Ms. Hunter move for an extension of time in 

which to object. Accordingly, her objection (Doc. # 14) is due to be denied.

As to Ms. Hunter’s motion to appeal in forma pauperis, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) 

provides 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.” In making this determination 

as to good faith, the court must use an objective standard, such as whether the 

appeal is “frivolous,” Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962), or 

“has no substantive merit,” United States v. Bottoson, 644 F.2d 1174, 1176 (5th 

Cir. Unit B May 1981) (per curiam). Applying this standard, the court is of the 

opinion that Ms. Hunter’s appeal is without a legal or factual basis and, 

accordingly, is frivolous and not taken in good faith. See Rudolph v. Allen, 666 

F.2d 519, 520 (11th Cir. 1982) (per curiam). 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objection to the November 14, 

2014 court order (Doc. # 14) and motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis -

Case 2:14-cv-01146-WKW-SRW Document 20 Filed 03/30/15 Page 2 of 3
3

(Doc. # 14) are DENIED, and that the appeal in this cause is certified, pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), as not taken in good faith.

DONE this 30th day of March, 2015. 

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:14-cv-01146-WKW-SRW Document 20 Filed 03/30/15 Page 3 of 3