Opinion
CIVIL 1:21-CV-00987 SEC P
12-14-2021
JERROD WILSON #0000002798, Plaintiff v. TONY MANCUSO ET AL, Defendants
DRELL, JUDGE.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
JOSEPH H.L. PEREZ-MONTES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Before the Court is a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal (ECF No. 21) filed by pro se Plaintiff Jerrod Wilson (“Wilson”). Because Wilson has failed to comply with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, his Motion should be DENIED.
I. Background
Wilson filed a Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that his constitutional rights were violated by Sheriff Tony Mancuso and Sheriff Tony Edwards, resulting in Wilson contracting COVID-19. ECF No. 6. At the time the Complaint was filed, Wilson was a detainee at the Catahoula Correctional Center (“CCC”).
Because Wilson had “on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, ” and because Wilson was not “under 1 imminent danger of serious physical injury, ” he was denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 12 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)).
After Wilson paid the civil filing fee, he was released from custody. His Complaint was denied and dismissed with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failing to state a claim for which relief can be granted. ECF No. 18.
II. Law and Analysis
Rule 24(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure requires a party seeking to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal to submit an affidavit that:
(A) shows in the detail prescribed by Form 4 of the Appendix of Forms the party's inability to pay or 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. The Rule provides an exception for parties who were permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in the district court action. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3). However, Wilson was not granted pauper status in his § 1983 case. ECF No. 12. Thus, the exception is inapplicable, and Wilson must comply with the general requirements. Wilson did not submit an affidavit, claim an entitlement to redress, or state the issues he intends to present on appeal. ECF Nos. 19, 21.
III. Conclusion
Because Wilson has not complied with Rule 24, IT IS RECOMMENDED that his Motion for Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 21) be DENIED.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), a party may file written objections to this Report and Recommendation within 14 days of service, unless the Court grants an extension of time to file objections under Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b). 2 A party may also respond to another party's objections to this Report and Recommendation within 14 days of service of those objections, again unless the Court grants an extension of time to file a response to objections.
No other briefs may be filed without leave of court, which will only be granted for good cause. A party's failure to timely file written objections to this Report and Recommendation will bar a party from later challenging factual or legal conclusions adopted by the District Judge, except if the challenge asserts “plain error.” 3