-1- 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

HERBERT STUDSTILL EL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CITY OF TAYLOR, 

Defendant. 

 /

Case No. 15-cv-12336 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DAVID R. GRAND

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED 

IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL [#20] 

 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Herbert Studstill El’s Application to 

Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs on Appeal, filed December 8, 2015. Dkt. 

No. 20. This Court’s November 16, 2015 Opinion and Order concluded that 

Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Dkt. No. 17. 

Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal on December 8, 2015. Dkt. No. 19. 

 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3) states: 

(3) Prior Approval. A party who was permitted to proceed in forma 

pauperis in the district-court action, or who was determined to be 

financially unable to obtain an adequate defense in a criminal case, 

may proceed on appeal in forma pauperis without further 

authorization, unless: 

(A) the district court—before or after the notice of appeal is filed—

certifies that the appeal is not taken good faith or finds that the party is 

2:15-cv-12336-GAD-DRG Doc # 22 Filed 02/03/16 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 77
-2- 

not otherwise entitled to proceed in forma pauperis and states in 

writing its reasons for the certification or finding; or 

(B) a statute provides otherwise. 

Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3). “Good faith” requires a showing that the issues are 

arguable on the merits and are, therefore, not frivolous; it does not require a 

showing of probable success. See Harkins v. Roberts, 935 F. Supp. 871, 873 (S.D. 

Miss. 1996). “If the district court can discern the existence of any nonfrivolous 

issue on appeal, the movant’s petition must be granted.” Id. “Although the term 

‘frivolous’ is not subject to a ready made definition, generally ‘[a]n appeal is 

frivolous when the result is obvious or when the appellant’s argument is wholly 

without merit.’ ” Dubay v. Wells, 506 F.3d 422, 432-33 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting 

Pieper v. Am. Arbitration Assoc., 336 F.3d 458, 465 (6th Cir. 2003)). 

 Here, the Court concludes that the appeal is not taken in good faith. Plaintiff 

failed to raise any arguments in support of his appeal. This Court thoroughly 

reviewed Plaintiff’s case and determined that all of Plaintiff’s claims are subject to 

dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiff has not identified any errors with respect to 

this Court’s conclusion that Plaintiff cannot bring a claim under the Moorish 

Zodiac Constitution, which is not within the limited jurisdiction of the federal 

courts of the United States. Nor does Plaintiff explain what facts the Court missed 

in determining that Plaintiff failed to put forth any facts in his pleadings to support 

claims under the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments. Lastly, Plaintiff did 

2:15-cv-12336-GAD-DRG Doc # 22 Filed 02/03/16 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 78
-3- 

not explain why the Court erroneously concluded that his constitutional claims fail 

to meet the requirements of Rule 12(b)(6). 

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s 

appeal is not taken in good faith and his Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

[#20] is DENIED 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 3, 2016 

 /s/ Gershwin A. Drain 

 HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN 

 United States District Court Judge 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

Copies of this Order were served on February 3, 2016 upon attorneys of record and Herbert 

Studstill-El at 6296 Carnegie St., Romulus, MI 48174 by electronic and/or ordinary mail. 

/s/ Tanya Bankston 

Case Manager 

2:15-cv-12336-GAD-DRG Doc # 22 Filed 02/03/16 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 79