Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

GARY BULLARD and

CYNTHIA W. BULLARD,

Plaintiffs,

v. CASE NO.: 3:10cv434/MCR/CJK

U.S. BANK, N.A., et al.,

Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before me on referral from the district judge for purposes of

determining the motion of attorney Bruce Committe for leave to appeal in forma

pauperis. In response toCommitte’s initial motion (doc. 146), I issued an order (doc.

152) explaining to Mr. Committe that his motion lacked an appropriate affidavit,

lacked an explanation in some reasonable detail of Mr. Committe’s claim of

entitlement to redress, and failed to specify the issues Mr. Committe intends to

present on appeal. I advised Mr. Committe that his motion, as filed, did not point out

any shortcoming in the order he seeks to appeal, but instead simply argued that the

district judge and the magistrate judge in this case should be disqualified based upon

their prejudice against human beings. Finally, I strongly cautioned Mr. Committe that

if he wished to appeal at public expense he must identify a good faith basis for his

appeal of the sanction order (doc. 127). 

1

The district court has now entered an Order of Summary Judgment against Mr. Committe’s 1

clients, Gary Bullard and Cynthia W. Bullard, and has directed the clerk to close the file. (Docs.

157, 158).

Case 3:10-cv-00434-MCR-CJK Document 163 Filed 07/12/12 Page 1 of 6
Page 2 of 6

In response to my order Mr. Committe filed an amended motion. In this

2

motion Mr. Committe states that he challenges the district court’s sanctions order

because the underlying mediation order, of which Mr. Committe has been found in

violation, “was an act of gross actual bias (as opposed to the appearance of bias) by

the Judge.” (Doc. 156, p. 2). As in his initial motion, Mr. Committe asserts, without

any support whatsoever, that the only reason for the mediation order appears to have

been this court’s bias in favor of corporations and against “human being plaintiffs.” 

(Doc. 156, p. 2). Because of Mr. Committe’s perception of bias, he has concluded “it

is necessary for the appellate court to give the appropriate instruction.” (Doc. 156,

p. 3). Based upon my review of Mr. Committe’s filing, as well as my familiarity with,

and review of, the record in this case, I make the following findings of fact:

1. Mr. Committe seeks to appeal an order of sanctions against him (doc.

127), which requires him to pay personally $2,125.03 to plaintiff. Ironically, before

the district court entered the order in question, and after I entered a Report and

Recommendation on this matter (doc. 116), Mr. Committe filed a document entitled

“Plaintiffs Non-Objection to Attorney Fee Rate and Time Spent.” (Doc. 124). In this

filing Mr. Committe “objected” to my recommendation that the amount offeessought

by defendant’s lawyers should be reduced, and argued instead that the total amount

defendant’s lawyers sought against Mr. Committe “is indeed reasonable . . . .” (Doc.

124, p. 2). Affirming the reasonableness of the time spent by defendant’s lawyers,

Mr. Committe made no mention, at that time, of any objection to the underlying

finding by the district court that he wassubject to sanctions. (Doc. 75). Notably, Mr.

Above the caption of the motion contains the typed words “DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT.” 2

(Doc. 156, p. 1). Despite this, it appears that it was Mr. Committe’s intent to file the amended

motion in response to my order, and I will therefore consider it as filed.

Case No: 3:10cv434/MCR/CJK

Case 3:10-cv-00434-MCR-CJK Document 163 Filed 07/12/12 Page 2 of 6
Page 3 of 6

Committe does not seek to appeal the sanction order (doc. 75), an order entered by

the district judge on January 17, 2012, but instead seeks to appeal the order assessing

fees (doc. 127).

2. Mr. Committe has not identified, either directly, or by reasonable

inference, any error committed by either the district judge or the magistrate judge in

subjecting him to sanctions, and determining the amount of those sanctions. Instead,

and as noted above, Mr. Committe’s complaint appears to be based on his belief that

this court is biased against human beings, and in favor of corporations.

3. In the affidavit attached to the amended motion, Mr. Committe aversthat

he has total monthly income of $55.00, and assets (real estate), valued by him at

$390,000.00. (Doc. 156-1, p. 2).

Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, I must apply the applicable law. 

“An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing

that it is not taken in good faith.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(3). The good faith bar of the

statute is objective. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962) (“We

hold . . . that ‘good faith’ in this context must be judged by an objective standard.”). 

One seeking an appeal in forma pauperis “demonstrates good faith when she seeks

appellate review of any issue that is not frivolous.” Busch v. Cnty. of Volusia, 189

F.R.D. 687, 692 (M.D. Fla. 1999). “[T]he district court must grant leave to appeal in

forma pauperis unless [the] issues raised are so frivolous that the appeal would be

dismissed in the case of a nonindigent litigant.” Id. The district court’s inquiry “is

limited to whether [the] appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits, and is

therefore not frivolous, and does not require that probable success be demonstrated.” 

Id.

Case No: 3:10cv434/MCR/CJK

Case 3:10-cv-00434-MCR-CJK Document 163 Filed 07/12/12 Page 3 of 6
Page 4 of 6

In this case, the question is not close. The motion would be denied simply

upon Mr. Committe’s failure to show indigency. He has, by his sworn affidavit, some

$390,000.00 in assets, as to which he asserts no encumbrance. Aside from that,

however, this appeal is not taken in good faith. Committe seeks review of an

attorney’s fee order to which he not only stipulated, but argued to the court that the

amount awarded should be higher than that actually determined by the magistrate

judge and approved by the district judge. Although Mr. Committe appears to have

some grievance with the mediation process utilized in this and many other cases, he

does not show, by airing that particular grievance, any error in the attorney’s fees

assessed against him. 

Moreover, even assuming that the question of the appropriateness of the

underlying sanction order could somehow be subject to review, Committe has not

identified any ground, much less a good faith ground, upon which to seek review. 

Hisstrange allegation that this court is biased against human beingssimply could not

form the basis of a successful appeal, as it is cast entirely in conclusory terms. 

Committe offers no support whatsoever for his subjective beliefs. Simply put, this

matter is one where movant’s realistic chances of ultimate success are so slight that

the appeal “is not one capable of being convincingly argued.” See Harris v.

Menendez, 817 F.2d 737, 740 n.5 (11th Cir. 1987).

I further find that Mr. Committe has not complied with the terms of my

previous order, nor with the express terms of FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE

PROCEDURE 24(a)(1)(C). The RULE requires that the party seeking leave must, by

affidavit, state “the issuesthat the party intends to present on appeal.” Even assuming

that Mr. Committe’s motion itself qualifies as an affidavit, he has not identified any

Case No: 3:10cv434/MCR/CJK

Case 3:10-cv-00434-MCR-CJK Document 163 Filed 07/12/12 Page 4 of 6
Page 5 of 6

distinct issue he intends to present on appeal, but has merely asserted and reasserted

his belief that the district court is biased against human beings. Little analysis is

required to show that such an assertion could never suffice as an issue on the appeal

of an order entered in a civil case. 

In the underlying order, the district court found:

Rule 16 providesthat the court may sanction a party who “fails to

obey a scheduling or other pretrial order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f)(1)(C). 

Additionally, the rule requires that “the court must order the party, his

attorney, or both to pay the reasonable expenses – including attorney’s

fees – incurred because of any noncompliance with this rule, unless the

noncompliance was substantially justified or other circumstances make

an award of expenses unjust.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f)(1), (2). . . . 

Nonetheless, Bullard and Committee each violated the court’s order, and

although Bullard has shown good cause based on his reliance on the

advice of counsel, Committee has not shown good cause. He states only

that he misread the plain language of the mediator’s guideline and that

“it did not enter his mind that there was any error in the mediator’s

guidelines and the court’s scheduling order.” 

(Doc. 75, p. 3).

Committe has not challenged anything contained in the underlying sanction

order, and as was made clear by the district court’s finding, Mr. Committe’s attempt

to avoid sanctions was based solely upon his claim that he misread the plain language

of the mediator’s guideline.

Upon the foregoing, it is, therefore, respectfully RECOMMENDED:

1. That the court CERTIFY that the proposed appeal is not taken in good

faith, and the Amended Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis on Appeal (doc. 156)

be DENIED.

Case No: 3:10cv434/MCR/CJK

Case 3:10-cv-00434-MCR-CJK Document 163 Filed 07/12/12 Page 5 of 6
Page 6 of 6

2. That because the motion and affidavit do not comport with FEDERAL

RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 24(a)(1)(C), the motion should be DENIED.

3. Also, that on account of movant’s failure to show indigency, the motion

 should be DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 12th day of July, 2012.

/s/Charles J. Kahn, Jr.

CHARLES J. KAHN, JR.

UNITEDSTATESMAGISTRATEJUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Any objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed

within fourteen days after being served a copy hereof. Any different deadline that

may appear on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only, and does not

control. A copy of any objections shall be served upon the magistrate judge and all

other parties. Failure to object may limit the scope of appellate review of factual

findings. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; United States v. Roberts, 858 F.2d 698, 701 (11th Cir.

1988).

Case No: 3:10cv434/MCR/CJK

Case 3:10-cv-00434-MCR-CJK Document 163 Filed 07/12/12 Page 6 of 6