Order orm (0172008) (
United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois NG

Name of Assigned Jud; Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Sudge John W. Darrah than Assigned Jodge
CASE NUMBER 12-cv-2325 DATE 5/10/12
CASE Conroy v. Chicago Police Department
TITLE
DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Plaintiff moves to proceed in forma pauperis on his appeal. Plaintiff's motion to proceed on appeal in forma
pauperis [15] is denied. See statement below.

Dogketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT

On March 5, 2012, Plaintiff Neal Conroy filed a Complaint with an application to proceed without
paying the customary $350 filing fee. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that during the course of his arrest by the
Chicago Police Department, a “level II vest” Plaintiff wore was taken and later destroyed by the
Chicago Police Department. Plaintiff sought recovery of the vest or monetary damages, amounting to the
value of this vest. This Complaint was dismissed on March 21, 2012, for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted. Despite this ruling, Plaintiff Conroy filed another Complaint, alleging the exact same
facts, as well as the facts of an entirely separate and unrelated incident, involving what he claims was the
illegal taking of a road flare Plaintiff possessed at the time of one of his arrests. Nothing in Plaintiff's
confusing and rambling “stories” (as he describes them) identified a claim whereby Plaintiff was entitled to
relief under the law. Because Plaintiff's claims were wholly without merit, and had no jurisdictional basis,
the Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis was denied and his case was dismissed pursuant to 28
US.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Following this ruling, Plaintiff filed an appeal in the Seventh Circuit and seeks to proceed in forma
pauperis in this appeal. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a) governs Plaintiff's motion to appeal in
| forma pauperis. The Rule requires a party seeking to appeal in forma pauperis to file a motion in the district
court. Fed. R. App. Pro. 24(a)(1). The rule further provides that where “a party who was permitted to
proceed in forma pauperis in the district-court action . .. may proceed on appeal in forma pauperis without
further authorization, unless: the district court . _ certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith.” Fed. R.
App. Pro. 24(a)(3)(A). If the appeal is deemed to be taken in bad faith, the district court must provide its
reasons for the certification in writing. Id. “[T]o determine that an appeal is in good faith, a court need only
find that a reasonable person could suppose faa ghe hasseme merit.” Walker v. O'Brien, 216 F.3d
626, 632 (7th Cir. 2000) (citing Lee v. Clinton, 209 Fi3d F025, ate (7th Cir. 2000)).

Based on Plaintiff's confusing, ill-pk&dSottiplalnt, 4¥1$ Cllr his claims are without merit and in bad
faith. Plaintiff presented no specific allegations to support his splaims or so-called “stories.” To permit

Page 1 of 2


STATEMENT

Plaintiff to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis with his meritless claims would serve only to waste the
appellate court’s limited resources. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal [15]
is denied, and this Court certifies his appeal is taken in bad faith, for the reasons described above.

Page 2 of 2