Opinion
8:22-cv-1610-KKM-AAS
10-05-2022
NOEL VINCENT THOMAS, Plaintiff, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES INSPECTOR GENERAL, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES, BUREAU OF RECORDS, DIVISION OF MOTORIST SERVICES, AND FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AMANDA ARNOLD SANSONE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff Noel Vincent Thomas, proceeding pro se, requests to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 12).
Proceeding in forma pauperis in federal court is permitted by 28 U.S.C. Section 1915, which authorizes any court of the United States to allow indigent persons to prosecute, defend, or appeal suits without prepayment of costs. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 441 (1962). However, an appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Good faith requires that the appeal present a nonfrivolous question for review. Cruz v. Hauck, 404 U.S. 59, 62 (1971). An appeal is frivolous if the plaintiff has little or no chance of success. Carroll v. Gross, 984 F.2d 392, 393 (11th Cir. 1993). An appeal is also frivolous when it is “without arguable merit either in law or fact.” Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2001).
Mr. Thomas's appeal and application to proceed in forma pauperis fail to establish the existence of a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument to raise on appeal. See (Doc. 12). Mr. Thomas attempts to appeal the September 8, 2022 order dismissing his case without prejudice.
In his notice of appeal, Mr. Thomas fails to identify how the September 8, 2022 order erred. As a result, it does not appear that Mr. Thomas's appeal contains reasoned, nonfrivolous arguments for appellate review. Therefore, it is RECOMMENDED that Mr. Thomas's request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (Doc. 12) be DENIED.
NOTICE TO PARTIES
The parties have fourteen days from the date they are served a copy of this report to file written objections to this report's proposed findings and recommendations or to seek an extension of the fourteen-day deadline to file written objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); 11th Cir. R. 3-1. A party's failure to object timely in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives that party's right to challenge on appeal the district court's order adopting this report's unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions. 11th Cir. R. 3-1.