From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Reynolds v. U.S.

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Mar 8, 2010
Case No. 00-CV-40094, Case No. 81-CR-50046 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 8, 2010)

Opinion

Case No. 00-CV-40094, Case No. 81-CR-50046.

March 8, 2010


ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS


This matter is before the Court on Petitioner's Motion to Proceed on Appeal In Forma Pauperis. (Dkt. No. 268.) Petitioner seeks leave to appeal (1) this Court's November 16, 2009 Order Denying Motion for Return of Forfeited Funds (Dkt. No. 265); and (2) this Court's November 16, 2009 Order Denying Motion for Return of Fine (Dkt. No. 266).

Petitioner requests to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. "Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(1) provides that a party to a district court action who desires to appeal in forma pauperis must file a motion in the district court. An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the court determines that it is not taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). "[T]o determine that an appeal is in good faith, a court need only find that a reasonable person could suppose that the appeal has some merit." Walker v. O'Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 631 (7th Cir. 2000).

"Good faith merely requires a showing that the issues are arguable on the merits; it does not require a showing of probable success." Foster v. Ludwick, 208 F. Supp. 2d 750, 765 (E.D. Mich. 2002). Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff's claims are being brought in good faith and, therefore, his request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Reynolds v. U.S.

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Mar 8, 2010
Case No. 00-CV-40094, Case No. 81-CR-50046 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 8, 2010)
Case details for

Reynolds v. U.S.

Case Details

Full title:FRANK R. REYNOLDS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

Date published: Mar 8, 2010

Citations

Case No. 00-CV-40094, Case No. 81-CR-50046 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 8, 2010)