From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bocook v. Mohr

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Western Division
May 26, 2022
3:16-cv-2291 (N.D. Ohio May. 26, 2022)

Opinion

3:16-cv-2291

05-26-2022

Daryl Bocook, Plaintiff, v. Gary Mohr, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

Jeffrey J. Helmick United States District Judge

Plaintiff Daryl Bocook has filed a motion to proceed on appeal without preparing the appellate filing fee. (Doc. No. 87). He seeks to argue that I erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the remaining defendant, Brian Wittrup. (Id. at 2). I previously concluded Bocook had failed to establish a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Wittrup retaliated against Bocook for exercising his First Amendment rights. (Doc. No. 83).

Section 1915 provides “[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). A court may grant a motion to proceed in forma pauperis if the issues are arguable on their merits, even if the petitioner cannot show a probability of success on the merits. See, e.g., Foster v. Ludwick, 208 F.Supp.2d 750, 765 (E.D. Mich. 2002). I conclude the issues Bocook raises are not frivolous, even if he is unlikely to succeed on appeal, and grant his motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. (Doc. No. 87).

So Ordered.


Summaries of

Bocook v. Mohr

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Western Division
May 26, 2022
3:16-cv-2291 (N.D. Ohio May. 26, 2022)
Case details for

Bocook v. Mohr

Case Details

Full title:Daryl Bocook, Plaintiff, v. Gary Mohr, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Western Division

Date published: May 26, 2022

Citations

3:16-cv-2291 (N.D. Ohio May. 26, 2022)