From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Johnson v. Holt

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION
May 18, 2017
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-CV-380 (MTT) (M.D. Ga. May. 18, 2017)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-CV-380 (MTT)

05-18-2017

TROY DELMAR JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN AHMED HOLT, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

Plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal as to the Court's Order granting summary judgment against him and now, pursuant to the Eleventh Circuit's direction, moves in this Court to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. Docs. 83; 85 at 2; 86. Applications to appeal in forma pauperis are governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 provides:

(a)(1) [A]ny court of the United States may authorize the commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal, or appeal therein, without prepayment of fees or security therefore, by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such prisoner possesses that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor. Such affidavit shall state the nature of the action, defense or appeal and affiant's belief that the person is entitled to redress.
(2) A prisoner seeking to bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding without prepayment of fees or security therefor, in addition to filing the affidavit filed under paragraph (1), shall submit a certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the prisoner for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint or notice of appeal, obtained from the appropriate official of each prison at which the prisoner is or was confined.
(3) An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.

Similarly Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a) provides:

(1) [A] party to a district-court action who desires to appeal in forma pauperis must file a motion in the district court. The party must attach 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.
(2) If the district court denies the motion, it must state its reasons in writing.

Thus, the Court must make two determinations when faced with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. First, it must determine whether the plaintiff is financially able to pay the filing fee required for an appeal. Plaintiff has submitted neither an up-to-date affidavit under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) nor a certified trust fund account statement covering the six-month period preceding his appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2), rather, he refers the Court back to his original IFP application. Doc. 86 at 1; see also Doc. 2-1. Plaintiff's motion to proceed IFP on appeal must be denied on these grounds.

But even if Plaintiff had filed the financial affidavit and trust fund account statement and further assuming that they show that Plaintiff is unable to pay the filing fee, the Court would still deny the application because the appeal would not be taken in good faith.

"'[G]ood faith' . . . must be judged by an objective standard." Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). The plaintiff demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a non-frivolous issue. Id.; Morris v. Ross, 664 F.2d 1032, 1033 (11th Cir. 1981). An issue "is frivolous if it is 'without arguable merit either in law or fact.'" Napier v. Preslicka, 314 F.3d 528, 531 (11th Cir. 2002). "Arguable means being capable of being convincingly argued." Sun v. Forrester, 939 F.2d 924, 925 (11th Cir. 1991) (quotation marks and citations omitted); Carroll v. Gross, 984 F.2d 392, 393 (11th Cir. 1993) ("[A] case is frivolous . . . when it appears the plaintiff 'has little or no chance of success.'") (citations omitted). "In deciding whether an [in forma pauperis] appeal is frivolous, a district court determines whether there is 'a factual and legal basis, of constitutional dimension, for the asserted wrong, however inartfully pleaded.'" Sun, 939 F.2d at 925 (citations omitted).

Although Plaintiff has not submitted a statement of the issues he intends to appeal, as is required under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(1)(C), this Court's independent review of the issues addressed in the Court's order granting summary judgment in adoption of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (see Doc. 78 adopting Doc. 73) demonstrates that Plaintiff's appeal is frivolous. See Hyche v. Christensen, 170 F.3d 769, 771 (7th Cir. 1999), overruled on other grounds by Lee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025 (7th Cir. 2000) (explaining that the arguments to be advanced on appeal are often obvious and decisions regarding good faith can be made by looking at the "reasoning of the ruling sought to be appealed" instead of requiring a statement from the plaintiff). The appeal, therefore, is not brought in good faith. Plaintiff has raised no issues with arguable merit. Consequently, Plaintiff's application to appeal in forma pauperis (Doc. 86) is DENIED.

If Plaintiff wishes to proceed with his appeal, he must pay the entire $505 appellate filing fee. Because Plaintiff has stated that he cannot pay the fee immediately, he must pay using the partial payment plan described under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b), the prison account custodian where Plaintiff is confined shall cause to be remitted to the Clerk of this Court monthly payments of 20% of the preceding month's income credited to Plaintiff's account (to the extent the account balance exceeds $10) until the $505 appellate filing fee has been paid in full. Checks should be made payable to "Clerk, U.S. District Court."

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send a copy of this Order to the custodian of the prison in which Plaintiff is incarcerated.

SO ORDERED, this 18th day of May, 2017.

S/ Marc T. Treadwell

MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


Summaries of

Johnson v. Holt

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION
May 18, 2017
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-CV-380 (MTT) (M.D. Ga. May. 18, 2017)
Case details for

Johnson v. Holt

Case Details

Full title:TROY DELMAR JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN AHMED HOLT, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION

Date published: May 18, 2017

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-CV-380 (MTT) (M.D. Ga. May. 18, 2017)