1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

ANTHONY OLIVER, §

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § No. 3:22-cv-00981-N-BT 

§

SANTANDER CONSUMER USA §

INC, § 

Defendant. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the Court is Anthony Oliver’s motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis on appeal (ECF No. 10). For the following reasons, the Court 

should deny Oliver’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-00981-N-BT Document 11 Filed 07/25/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID 68
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.

Oliver initiated this civil action on April 16, 2022, when he filed his 

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

that Oliver’s case be dismissed as barred by the three-strikes provision of 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(g), and his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis be 

denied as moot. FCR (ECF No. 6). Oliver did not file objections. On June 16, 

2022, the Court accepted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, denied 

Oliver’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed this civil action 

as barred by § 1915(g). Ord. (ECF No. 7); J. (ECF No. 8). 

The Court found that Oliver, a Georgia prisoner, was precluded from 

pursuing this civil action under the “three strikes” provision of the Prison 

Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), § 1915(g). See Jackson v. Johnson, 475 F.3d 

261, 265 (5th Cir. 2017). If Oliver is allowed to proceed in forma pauperis

on appeal, his appeal will ultimately also be dismissed under § 1915(g). 

Case 3:22-cv-00981-N-BT Document 11 Filed 07/25/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID 69
3

Therefore, Oliver’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. 

III. 

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

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

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

appeal, he may challenge that finding, by filing a separate motion to 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 July 25, 2022. 

____________________________

REBECCA RUTHERFORD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-00981-N-BT Document 11 Filed 07/25/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID 70
4

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-00981-N-BT Document 11 Filed 07/25/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID 71