Opinion
1:20-cv-22995-KMW
10-28-2022
SILVA HARAPETI, Plaintiff, v. CBS TELEVISION STATIONS INC., et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
LAUREN F. LOUIS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon pro se Plaintiff Silva Harapeti's Motion for Permission to Appeal In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 158). The matter has been referred to the undersigned by the Honorable Kathleen M. Williams, United States District Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Magistrate Judge Rules of the Local Rules of the Southern District of Florida, to take any appropriate action required by law. (ECF No. 161). Having reviewed the Motion, Plaintiff's Pro Se Notice of Appeal (ECF No. 157), the record as a whole, and being otherwise duly advised in the premises, the undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS that the Motion (ECF No. 158) be DENIED, without prejudice, for the reasons set forth below.
To appeal in forma pauperis, a party must file in the district court a motion and an affidavit that: “(A) shows . . . the party's inability to pay or to give security for fees and costs; (B) claims an entitlement to redress; and (C) states the issues that the party intends to present on appeal.” Fed. R. App. P. 24(a). Applications to appeal in forma pauperis are governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Federal Rule Appellate Procedure 24. A court of the United States may authorize a party to proceed in forma pauperis upon an affidavit of indigency. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1).
An appeal, however, “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); see also Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3)(A). A party who seeks appellate review of an issue does so in good faith if the issue is not frivolous from an objective standard. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). An in forma pauperis application is frivolous “if it is without arguable merit either in law or fact.” Napier v. Preslicka, 314 F.3d 528, 531 (11th Cir. 2002). Alternatively, where a claim is arguable, but ultimately will be unsuccessful, it should be allowed to proceed. See Cofield v. Ala. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 936 F.2d 512, 515 (11th Cir. 1991).
Here, the Motion alleges an inability to pay and states that Plaintiff believes she is entitled to redress. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(A)-(B); (ECF No. 158 at 1) (“I believe I am entitled to redress.”). However, the Motion fails to “state[] the issues that [Plaintiff] intends to present on appeal.” Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(C). Nor does Plaintiff identify the issues she intends to raise on appeal in her Pro Se Notice of Appeal (ECF No. 157). Accordingly, the Motion is deficient for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(1).
Accordingly, the undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS that pro se Plaintiff Silva Harapeti's Motion for Permission to Appeal In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 158) be DENIED, without prejudice.
A party shall serve and file written objections, if any, to this Report and Recommendation with the Honorable Kathleen M. Williams, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. Failure to timely file objections will bar a de novo determination by the District Judge of anything in this recommendation and shall constitute a waiver of a party's “right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions.” 11th Cir. R. 3-1 (2016); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Harrigan v. Metro-Dade Police Dep't Station #4, 977 F.3d 1185, 1191-92 (11th Cir. 2020).
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
cc: Honorable Kathleen M. Williams
Counsel of Record