1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

SCOTTIE H. GIBSON, §

#201901879 §

Petitioner, §

§

v. § No. 3:22-cv-02057-M-BT 

§

DALE S. HANNA, §

Respondent. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the Court is a motion by Scottie H. Gibson to proceed in forma 

pauperis on appeal (ECF No. 12). For the following reasons, the Court 

should deny Gibson’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-02057-M-BT Document 13 Filed 12/09/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID 59
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.

Gibson, a pretrial detainee, initiated this pro se lawsuit by filing the 

court-approved form for a complaint in a prisoner civil rights lawsuit. He 

alleged that he was being unlawfully detained in violation of the United 

States Constitution, and the magistrate judge recommended that the Court 

construe this action as a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2241 and dismiss it for failure to exhaust state court remedies. Gibson filed 

objections. (ECF No. 8.) 

On November 14, 2022, the District Court overruled Gibson’s 

objections, accepted the recommendation, denied a certificate of 

appealability (COA), and entered judgment. Ord. (ECF No. 9); J. (ECF No. 

10). At that time, the Court found that Gibson failed to show that “reasonable 

jurists would find this Court’s ‘assessment of the constitutional claims 

debatable or wrong,’” “reasonable jurists would find it debatable whether the 

petition state[d] a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right,’” or 

Case 3:22-cv-02057-M-BT Document 13 Filed 12/09/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID 60
3

“whether [this Court] was correct in its procedural ruling.” Ord. 1 (ECF No. 

9) (quoting Slack v. Daniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

The Court previously concluded that Gibson’s claims lacked merit and 

denied a certificate of appealability. Incorporating the magistrate judge’s 

Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation and the Court’s adoption 

order, which denied a certificate of appealability, the Court should certify 

that the appeal is not taken in good faith. Specifically, the appeal presents 

no legal point of arguable merit, and it would be frivolous. See Howard, 707 

F.2d at 220. 

III. 

The Court should find Gibson’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 Gibson’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 from the date of this 

order. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202; see also Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5).

Signed December 9, 2022. 

____________________________

REBECCA RUTHERFORD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-02057-M-BT Document 13 Filed 12/09/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID 61
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-02057-M-BT Document 13 Filed 12/09/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID 62