Opinion
21-CV-23176-CIV-COOKE/DAMIAN
03-22-2022
RONALD SATISH EMRIT, Plaintiff, v. MIAMI POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant.
Ronald Satish Emrit, pro se
Ronald Satish Emrit, pro se
MARCIA G. COOKE, DISTRICT JUDGE
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS
MELISSA DAMIAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon pro se Plaintiff, Ronald Satish Emrit's (“Plaintiff”), Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis [ECF No. 13] (the “Motion”).
The undersigned has reviewed the Motion and the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, finds that the Motion should be denied for the reasons set forth below.
I. BACKGROUND
On September 1, 2021, Plaintiff filed a pro se Complaint under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking injunctive relief and $80,000 in damages. [ECF No. 1]. That same day, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. [ECF No. 3]. On October 12, 2021, Judge Marcia Cooke entered an Order Striking the Complaint and denying the Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis as moot. [ECF No. 4]. On January 6, 2021, Plaintiff filed three motions: a Motion to Vacate Judgment [ECF No. 6], a Motion to Reopen the Case [ECF No. 7], and a Motion in Limine/Notice of Filing [ECF No. 8]. Judge Cooke denied all three motions on the grounds Plaintiff provided no valid basis to vacate the judgement or reopen the case. [ECF No. 9]. On March 1, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal [ECF No. 10] and, on March 10, 2022, filed the Motion at issue. [ECF No. 13].
II. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), “parties instituting a civil action, suit or proceeding in [a district] court, whether by original process, removal or otherwise” are required to “pay a filing fee of $[505.00].” However, courts may permit parties to proceed in forma pauperis to initiate a civil action “without prepayment of fees or security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). “There is no absolute right to be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in civil matters; rather it is a privilege extended to those unable to pay filing fees when the action is not frivolous or malicious.” Startti v. United States, 415 F.2d 1115, 1116 (5th Cir. 1969) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915). The statute “is designed to ensure that indigent litigants have meaningful access to the federal courts.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989) (citing Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 342-43 (1948)).
The $505.00 is the amount required to file a Notice of Appeal in the District Court.
In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.
Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that a party filing a motion in the district court seeking to appeal in forma pauperis must attach an affidavit to the motion that shows the party's inability to pay, claims an entitlement to redress, and states the issues that the party intends to present on appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1).
III. discussion
With the foregoing in mind, the undersigned turns to Plaintiffs request for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. As a threshold matter, Plaintiff did not follow the requirements of Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. While Plaintiffs Motion does contain an affidavit that shows his inability to pay, it does not “claim[] an entitlement to redress” and “state[] the issues that the party intends to present on appeal.” Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(B)-(C) (alterations added). For this reason, Plaintiffs Motion must be denied.
IV. CONCLUSION
For all the reasons set forth above, the undersigned finds that Plaintiffs Motion must be denied because it does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 24(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Appeal in Forma Pauperis [ECF No. 13] is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED.