Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-23356-CV-WILLIAMS

JOSEPH LINDON POLLARD, 

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Respondents.

/

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner Joseph Lindon Pollard’s

“Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs,” docketed by 

the Clerk on February 7, 2023 as a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, which the Court 

construes as a third motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (“Third IFP Motion”). 

(DE 43.) On August 12, 2020, Petitioner initiated the above-captioned case by filing a 

petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Section 2241 Petition”). 

(DE 1.) On August 19, 2020, U.S. Magistrate Judge Lisette M. Reid issued a report and 

recommendation (“Report”), recommending that the Court dismiss the Section 2241 

Petition for lack of jurisdiction and decline to issue a certificate of appealability. (DE 4.) 

On September 9, 2020, the Court entered an order affirming and adopting the Report, 

denying the Section 2241 Petition, and declining to issue a certificate of appealability 

(“Order of Dismissal”). (DE 8.) On October 2, 2020, Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal 

with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (“Eleventh Circuit”), seeking to 

appeal the Court’s Order of Dismissal. (DE 10.) 

Case 1:20-cv-23356-KMW Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/13/2023 Page 1 of 4
Page 2 of 4

On October 23, 2020, Petitioner filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis on appeal (DE 13) (“First IFP Motion”), which the Court denied because it failed 

to state an entitlement to redress and did not mention any issues that Petitioner intended 

to present on appeal (DE 14). Then, on April 15, 2021, the Eleventh Circuit dismissed 

Petitioner’s appeal for lack of prosecution because he failed to timely pay the appropriate 

filing and docketing fees. (DE 19.) On May 18, 2021, Petitioner filed a Motion to Reopen 

this Case (DE 24), which the Court denied because it failed to seek relief under any of 

the enumerated grounds of Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (DE 26). 

On August 9, 2021, Petitioner filed a second motion to proceed in forma pauperis

on appeal (DE 27) (“Second IFP Motion”). On December 16, 2022, the Court denied the 

Second IFP Motion because Petitioner failed to show that he previously was unable to 

pay the appellate filing fee, did not mention any entitlement to redress, and failed to 

mention any issues that he intended to pursue on appeal. (DE 35.) Petitioner has filed 

two Notices of Appeal (DE 36; DE 38) of the Court’s Order denying his Second IFP Motion 

(DE 35). 

Petitioner has now filed the Third IFP Motion, which the Court denies. Under 

federal law, “any court of the United States may authorize the commencement, 

prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal, or appeal 

therein, without prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a person who submits an 

affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such prisoner possesses that the person 

is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Further, Rule 

24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure states that “a party to a district-court action 

who desires to appeal in forma pauperis must file a motion in the district court . . . . 

Case 1:20-cv-23356-KMW Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/13/2023 Page 2 of 4
Page 3 of 4

attach[ing] 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). 

However, 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). A litigant who seeks 

appellate review of an issue does so in good faith if the relevant issue is not frivolous from 

an objective standard. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). An 

application to proceed in forma pauperis is frivolous “if it is without arguable merit either 

in law or fact.” Napier v. Preslicka, 314 F.3d 528, 531 (11th Cir. 2002). Nevertheless, a 

court should allow an arguable claim to proceed, even if it ultimately will be unsuccessful. 

See Cofield v. Ala. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 936 F.2d 512, 515 (11th Cir. 1991). Here, 

Petitioner’s Third IFP Motion fails to comply with Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. Specifically, the Motion: (1) fails to show that Petitioner has previously been 

unable to pay appellate filing fees; (2) does not mention any entitlement to redress; and 

(3) fails to mention any of the issues that Petitioner intends to present on appeal. 

Finally, Petitioner is cautioned for a second time that his continued, meritless filings 

are expending unnecessary judicial time and resources. Consequently, Petitioner is 

cautioned that his future pro se filings in this case may be restricted. This injunctive 

restriction may be “‘necessary and prudent’ in order to curb conduct that would impair the 

rights of other litigants and [this Court’s] ability to carry out [its] Article III functions.” See 

Simmons v. Warden, 589 F. App’x 919, 923 (11th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (citing Procup 

v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069, 1071, 1073 (11th Cir. 1986)) (en banc) (per curiam).

Case 1:20-cv-23356-KMW Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/13/2023 Page 3 of 4
Page 4 of 4

Accordingly, after review of the Third IFP Motion and the record, it is ORDERED 

AND ADJUDGED that Petitioner’s Third IFP Motion (DE 43) is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Florida, this 13th day of August, 

2023. 

cc:

Joseph Lindon Pollard, Pro Se

#502102157

Broward County Main Jail

Inmate Mail/Parcels

Post Office Box 9356

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33310

United States Attorney

Noticing 2241/Bivens US Attorney

Email: usafls-2255@usdoj.gov

Case 1:20-cv-23356-KMW Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/13/2023 Page 4 of 4