Source: https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/alabama/almdce/2:2008cv00419/38470/94
Timestamp: 2016-10-27 11:28:48
Document Index: 161535053

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915']

ORDER construing 93 NOTICE OF APPEAL as containing M/IFP; denying 93 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis and that the appeal in this cause is certified, pursuant to 28 U for Lloyd v. Marshall et al (INMATE1) :: Justia Dockets & Filings Log In
ORDER construing 93 NOTICE OF APPEAL as containing M/IFP; denying 93 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis and that the appeal in this cause is certified, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(a), as not taken in good faith. Signed by Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on 05/01/12. (ydw, )
DERRICK MYRON LLOYD, #11A2684,
DAVID T. MARSHALL, et al.,
CASE NO. 2:08-cv-0419-MEF
This cause is now before the Court on the plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal (Doc. #93)
which the Court construes to contain a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) provides that “[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma
pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” 1 In making
this determination as to good faith, a court must use an objective standard, such as whether
the appeal is "frivolous." Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). “The statute
rovides that a court ‘may dismiss the case if the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if satisfied
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e):
(2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may
have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the
court determines that-(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from
that the action is frivolous or malicious.’” Attwood v. Singletary, 105 F.3d 610, 613 (11th
Cir. 1997) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (1996)).
This circuit has defined a frivolous appeal under section 1915(d)
as being one “‘without arguable merit.’” Harris v. Menendez,
817 F.2d 737, 739 (11th Cir.1987)(quoting Watson v. Ault, 525
F.2d 886, 892 (5th Cir.1976)). “‘Arguable means capable of
being convincingly argued.’” Moreland v. Wharton, 899 F.2d
1168, 1170 (11th Cir.1990) (per curiam) (quoting Menendez,
817 F.2d at 740 n. 5); see Clark, 915 F.2d at 639 (“A lawsuit
[under section 1915(d)] is frivolous if the ‘plaintiff's realistic
chances of ultimate success are slight.’” (quoting Moreland, 899
F.2d at 1170)).
Sun v. Forrester, 939 F.2d 924, 925 (11th Cir. 1991), reh’g denied, 503 U.S. 999 (1992); see
also Weeks v. Jones, 100 F.3d 124, 127 (11th Cir. 1996) (stating that “Factual allegations are
frivolous for purpose of [28 U.S.C.] § 1915(d) when they are ‘clearly baseless;’ legal
theories are frivolous when they are ‘indisputably meritless.’”) (citations omitted).
Applying the foregoing standard, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff’s appeal
is without a legal or factual basis and, accordingly, is frivolous and not taken in good faith.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion to proceed on appeal in forma
pauperis is DENIED and that the appeal in this cause is certified, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 1915(a), as not taken in good faith.