Opinion
22-3123-SAC
06-07-2023
ANTHONY S. KIDD, Plaintiff, v. JEREMY BAKER, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff brought this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. On December 7, 2022, the Court entered an Order (Doc. 31) dismissing this matter. On December 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal (Doc. 35) and a Motion for Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 36). The Court granted the motion. (Doc. 39). On April 20, 2023, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a mandate affirming the dismissal. (Doc. 45). Plaintiff then filed a Motion for Reconsideration with this Court (Doc. 46), which the Court denied on May 11, 2023 (Doc. 48).
Plaintiff has now filed a Notice of Appeal (Doc. 51) as to the denial of his Motion for Reconsideration. The matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 54).
28 U.S.C. § 1915 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). The Court finds that Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal because his appeal is not taken in good faith. There is no new substantial question for review since Plaintiff's first appeal, and an appeal would be futile. See United States v. Farley, 238 F.2d 575, 576 (2d Cir. 1956). Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 54).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this Court certifies that Plaintiff's appeal is not taken in good faith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 54) is denied.
Copies of this order shall be transmitted to Plaintiff and to the Clerk of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
IT IS SO ORDERED.