1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

SHEDRICK THORNTON, §

#22003389 §

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § No. 3:22-cv-00605-C-BT 

§

MICHAEL PITTMAN, et al., § 

Defendants. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the Court is Shedrick Thornton’s motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis on appeal. (ECF No. 48.) For the following reasons, the Court 

should deny Thornton’s motion. 

I.

To proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, an appellant must show 

financial eligibility and a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Carson v. Polley, 689 

F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 

24(a)(3)(A), an appellant is ineligible for in forma pauperis status if the 

court certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith. “Good faith” means 

that the issues on appeal are not frivolous. Coppedge v. United States, 369 

U.S. 438, 445 (1962). When the underlying claims are “entirely frivolous and 

had no possibility of success,” the appeal is not taken in good faith. Baugh 

v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 201-02 (5th Cir. 1997). The determination of whether 

good faith exists “is limited to whether the appeal involves legal points 

Case 3:22-cv-00605-C-BT Document 49 Filed 02/16/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID 339
2

arguable on the merits (and therefore not frivolous).” United States v. 

Moore, 858 F. App’x 172, 172 (5th Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (quoting Howard 

v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted)). A district court has discretion in deciding whether to 

grant or deny a request to proceed in forma pauperis. Williams v. Estelle, 

681 F.2d 946, 947 (5th Cir. 1982) (per curiam) (citing Green v. Estelle, 649 

F.2d 298, 302 (5th Cir. 1981)). 

II.

Thornton initiated this civil action on March 15, 2022, when he filed 

his pro se complaint. Compl. (ECF No. 3). The magistrate judge 

recommended that Thornton’s civil claims be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §§ 

1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B). FCR (ECF No. 42). Thornton filed objections (ECF 

No. 44), but they were overruled. On January 17, 2023, the Court accepted 

the magistrate judge’s recommendation, dismissed this civil action with 

prejudice, and entered judgment. Ord. (ECF No. 45); J. (ECF No. 46). 

The Court found that Thornton’s civil action was frivolous and subject 

to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B). If Thornton is 

allowed to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, his appeal will ultimately 

also be dismissed as frivolous. Therefore, Thornton’s appeal of the Court’s 

dismissal of this civil action lacks merit and is therefore frivolous. See 

Moore, 858 F. App’x at 172. 

Case 3:22-cv-00605-C-BT Document 49 Filed 02/16/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID 340
3

III. 

Thornton is incarcerated and is appealing an unfavorable judgment in 

a civil action, so the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) applies, and the 

full filing fee to initiate this appeal is $505.00. 

The Court assesses an initial partial filing fee of $0.00. The agency 

having custody of Thornton shall collect the sum from the trust fund account 

or institutional equivalent, when funds are available, and forward it to the 

clerk of the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Thereafter, Thornton 

shall pay $505.00, the balance of the filing fee, in periodic installments. 

Thornton is required to make payments of 20% of the preceding months’ 

income credited to his prison account, provided the account exceeds 

$10.00, until he has paid the total filing fee of $505.00. 

The agency having custody of Thornton shall collect this amount from 

the trust fund account or the institutional equivalent when funds are 

available and when permitted by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2) and forward it to the 

clerk of the district court. 

IV.

The Court should find Thornton’s appeal is not taken in good faith and 

DENY his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. The 

Court should also assess an initial partial filing fee of $0.00. 

If the Court denies Thornton’s request to proceed in forma pauperis

on appeal, he may challenge that finding, by filing a separate motion to 

Case 3:22-cv-00605-C-BT Document 49 Filed 02/16/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID 341
4

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal with the Clerk of Court for the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit within 30 days. See Baugh, 117 

F.3d at 202; see also Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5).

Signed February 16, 2023. 

____________________________

REBECCA RUTHERFORD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all 

parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of 

this report and recommendation must file specific written objections within 

14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV.

P. 72(b). To be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or 

recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the 

objection, and specify the place in the magistrate judge's report and 

recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An objection 

that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the 

magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file specific written objections will 

bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal 

conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the 

district court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United 

Services Automobile Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996), modified by 

statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file 

objections to 14 days).

Case 3:22-cv-00605-C-BT Document 49 Filed 02/16/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID 342