Opinion
Cause No.: 1:05-CV-101-TLS.
August 22, 2006
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Permission to File Appeal In Forma Pauperis [DE 77], filed on August 10, 2006.
In accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(1)(A), the Plaintiffs' Affidavit Accompanying Motion for Permission to Appeal In Forma Pauperis demonstrates that the Plaintiffs do not have the ability to pay or to give security for fees and costs. The Plaintiffs assert that they have not been employed within the last twelve months, do not have any cash, have a 1995 minivan as their only asset, and have four dependents.
The Plaintiffs assert that they are entitled to redress because the district court erroneously granted summary judgment to Defendants Vaughn Norton and the Town of Orland. The standard for refusing to permit an appeal to be taken in forma pauperis is that the appeal be certified by the district court in writing as "not taken in good faith." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). This is an objective standard that requires the Court to consider whether the claim is frivolous — whether it is a claim that "no reasonable person could suppose to have any merit." Lee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025, 1026 (7th Cir. 2000). The Court finds that the Plaintiffs' appeal is not frivolous.
The Court is satisfied that the Plaintiffs have established their inability to pay or to give security for the fees and costs of an appeal, have claimed an entitlement to redress, and state the issues that they intend to present on appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 24(a)(1)(A)-(B). For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiffs' Motion [DE 77] is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED.