Lloyd v. Marshall et al (INMATE1)

Filing 94

ORDER construing 93 NOTICE OF APPEAL as containing M/IFP; denying 93 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis and that the appeal in this cause is certified, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(a), as not taken in good faith. Signed by Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on 05/01/12. (ydw, )

Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION DERRICK MYRON LLOYD, #11A2684, Plaintiff, v. DAVID T. MARSHALL, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 2:08-cv-0419-MEF WO ORDER This cause is now before the Court on the plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal (Doc. #93) which the Court construes to contain a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed on April 30, 2012. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) provides that “[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” 1 In making this determination as to good faith, a court must use an objective standard, such as whether the appeal is "frivolous." Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). “The statute rovides that a court ‘may dismiss the case if the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if satisfied 1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e): (2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that-(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or (B) the action or appeal-(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. that the action is frivolous or malicious.’” Attwood v. Singletary, 105 F.3d 610, 613 (11th Cir. 1997) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (1996)). This circuit has defined a frivolous appeal under section 1915(d) as being one “‘without arguable merit.’” Harris v. Menendez, 817 F.2d 737, 739 (11th Cir.1987)(quoting Watson v. Ault, 525 F.2d 886, 892 (5th Cir.1976)). “‘Arguable means capable of being convincingly argued.’” Moreland v. Wharton, 899 F.2d 1168, 1170 (11th Cir.1990) (per curiam) (quoting Menendez, 817 F.2d at 740 n. 5); see Clark, 915 F.2d at 639 (“A lawsuit [under section 1915(d)] is frivolous if the ‘plaintiff's realistic chances of ultimate success are slight.’” (quoting Moreland, 899 F.2d at 1170)). Sun v. Forrester, 939 F.2d 924, 925 (11th Cir. 1991), reh’g denied, 503 U.S. 999 (1992); see also Weeks v. Jones, 100 F.3d 124, 127 (11th Cir. 1996) (stating that “Factual allegations are frivolous for purpose of [28 U.S.C.] § 1915(d) when they are ‘clearly baseless;’ legal theories are frivolous when they are ‘indisputably meritless.’”) (citations omitted). Applying the foregoing standard, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff’s appeal is without a legal or factual basis and, accordingly, is frivolous and not taken in good faith. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED and that the appeal in this cause is certified, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(a), as not taken in good faith. st DONE this the 1 day of May, 2012. /s/ Mark E. Fuller UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?