Opinion
Case No: 8:16-cv-1182-T-27JSS
01-10-2018
AL-RASHID MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF PLANT CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants.
Copies to: Pro Se Plaintiff, Counsel of Record
ORDER
BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiff's "Affidavit of Facts in Support of Reconsideration on Construed Motion to Proceed on Appeal In Forma Pauperis, to Make Additional Factual Findings-Objecting to Order of Denial Motion for Permission to Appeal In Forma Pauperis Indigency" (Dkt. 45). The motion is DENIED.
The undersigned certifies that this appeal is not taken in good faith. While Plaintiff purports to enumerate the issues he intends to raise on appeal, he has not demonstrated "'the existence of a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts in support of the issues raised on appeal.'" McIntosh v. U. S. Parole Comm'n, 115 F.3d 809, 812 (10th Cir. 1997) (quoting DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 937 F.2d 502, 505 (10th Cir. 1991)).
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(a)(3). "'Good faith' has been defined as a requirement that an appeal present a nonfrivolous question for review." Cruz v. Hauck, 404 U.S. 59, 62 (1971). "An issue is frivolous when it appears that 'the legal theories are indisputably meritless.'" Ghee v. Retailers Nat'l Bank, 271 F. App'x. 858, 860 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting Carroll v. Gross, 984 F.2d 392, 393 (11th Cir. 1993)). "In other words, an IFP action is frivolous, and thus not brought in good faith, if it is 'without arguable merit either in law or fact.'" Ghee, 271 F. App'x. at 859-860 (quoting Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2001)). --------
DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of January, 2018.
/s/ _________
JAMES D. WHITTEMORE
United States District Judge Copies to: Pro Se Plaintiff, Counsel of Record