UNTIED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TONY TOREAL TOWNSEND, 

 Petitioner, 

v. 

BARRY D. DAVIS, 

 Respondent. 

_________________________________/ 

 CASE NO. 08-15159 

 

 HON. MARIANNE O. BATTANI 

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

PETITIONER’S MOTION TO PROCEED INFORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL 

This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Tony Townsend’s Motion to Proceed 

In Forma Pauperis on Appeal. (Doc. 30 at 27-36). The Court has reviewed Petitioner’s 

filing, and for the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES without prejudice his request to 

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. 

I. BACKGROUND 

 On March 23, 2011, the Court denied Petitioner Tony Townsend a writ of habeas 

corpus and declined to issue a certificate of appealability. (Doc. 23). Petitioner filed a 

Notice of Appeal on April 25, 2011. (Doc. 26). On July 7, 2011, the Sixth Circuit 

dismissed Petitioner’s appeal for want of prosecution because he failed to pay the 

required filing fee. (Doc. 29). 

On July 25, 2011, Petitioner sought reconsideration of the dismissal at the Sixth 

Circuit because he claims this Court has yet to adjudicate his motion to proceed in 

forma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal, which he allegedly filed on April 21, 2011. (Doc. 30) 

The docket sheet in this matter reveals no pending IFP motion, and the Court did not 

previously grant Petitioner pauper status. Petitioner avers he filed the IFP motion in 

2:08-cv-15159-MOB-PJK Doc # 31 Filed 08/25/11 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 3281
2 

April and suggests a clerical error caused the docketing mistake. (Id. at 18-20). In any 

event, the Sixth Circuit forwarded Petitioner’s July 25 filings to this Court with 

instructions to review the IFP motion included therein. Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion 

to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal is now before the Court. (Doc. 30 at 27-36). 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24 and Section 1915 of the Prison Litigation 

Reform Act of 1996 establish the standard for evaluating applications to proceed IFP on 

appeal. Rule 24 provides that a party to a district-court action seeking pauper status on 

appeal must file a motion in the district court and attach an affidavit that (1) shows in 

detail as prescribed by Form 4 of the Appendix of Forms the party's inability to pay; (2) 

claims an entitlement to redress, and (3) states the issues that the party intends to 

present on appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1). Section 1915(a)(2) imposes an additional 

requirement for prisoners seeking IFP status on appeal; the prisoner must include “a 

certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the 

prisoner for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint or 

notice of appeal, obtained from the appropriate official of each prison at which the 

prisoner is or was confined.” Even if the above requirements are satisfied, a district 

court will deny a party IFP status if it determines the appeal is not taken in good faith. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). A district court does not abuse its discretion in denying an IFP 

motion that does not comply with the requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) 

and Rule 24(a)(1). See Flippin v. Massey, 86 F. App'x 896 (6th Cir. 2004); Reynolds v. 

Federal Bureau of Prisons, 30 F. App'x 574, 575 (6th Cir. 2002). 

2:08-cv-15159-MOB-PJK Doc # 31 Filed 08/25/11 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 3282
3 

III. ANALYSIS 

The Court must deny Petitioner’s IFP motion because it is incomplete. Although 

Petitioner stated he is entitled to redress and attached a certified copy of his prison trust 

fund account, he failed to state the issues he intends to present on appeal and did not 

describe his inability to pay in the detail set forth in Form 4. Without a statement of 

appellate issues, the Court cannot perform its screening function under 28 U.S.C. 

1915(a)(3). Additionally, the absence of detailed financial information as required by 

Rule 24(a)(1)(a) prevents the Court from accurately assessing Petitioner’s alleged 

inability to pay fees and costs. Therefore, Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis is DENIED without prejudice. Petitioner may file a new motion on or before 

September 12, 2011 or pay the full filing fee on or before September 30, 2011. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/Marianne O. Battani 

 MARIANNE O. BATTANI 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

DATE: August 25, 2011 

 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I hereby certify that on the above date a copy of this Order was served upon the 

Petitioner via ordinary U.S. Mail, and Counsel for the Respondent, electronically. 

 s/Bernadette M. Thebolt 

 Case Manager 

2:08-cv-15159-MOB-PJK Doc # 31 Filed 08/25/11 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 3283