Franklin v. The Healthcare Authority for Baptist Health et al (MAG+)

Filing 81

ORDER: This cause is now before the Court on the plaintiff's 79 Notice of Appeal filed by Nue Cheer Franklin which the Court construes to contain a MOTION for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. Applying the foregoing standard as further set ou t in the order, 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. 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 Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), as not taken in good faith. Signed by Hon. Chief Judge Mark E. Fuller on 9/24/2010. (dmn)

Download PDF
Franklin v. The Healthcare Authority for Baptist Health et al (MAG+) Doc. 81 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION N U E CHEER FRANKLIN, ) ) P la in tif f , ) v. ) ) T H E HEALTHCARE AUTHORITY FOR ) B A P T IS T HEALTH, et al., ) ) D e f e n d a n ts. ) C A S E NO. 2:09-cv-1075-MEF WO ORDER T h is cause is now before the Court on the plaintiff's Notice of Appeal (Doc. #79) w h i c h the Court construes to contain a motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma p a u p e ris filed on September 21, 2010. T itle 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3) provides that "[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma p a u p e ris if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith." 1 In making th is determination as to good faith, a court must use an objective standard, such as whether th e appeal is "frivolous." Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). "The statute 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. Dockets.Justia.com rovides that a court `may dismiss the case if the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if satisfied th a t the action is frivolous or malicious.'" Attwood v. Singletary, 105 F.3d 610, 613 (11th C ir. 1997) (citing 28 U.S.C. 1915(d) (1996)). This circuit has defined a frivolous appeal under section 1915(d) a s being one "`without arguable merit.'" Harris v. Menendez, 8 1 7 F.2d 737, 739 (11th Cir.1987)(quoting Watson v. Ault, 525 F .2 d 886, 892 (5th Cir.1976)). "`Arguable means capable of b e in g convincingly argued.'" Moreland v. Wharton, 899 F.2d 1 1 6 8 , 1170 (11th Cir.1990) (per curiam) (quoting Menendez, 8 1 7 F.2d at 740 n. 5); see Clark, 915 F.2d at 639 ("A lawsuit [ u n d e r section 1915(d)] is frivolous if the `plaintiff's realistic c h a n c e s of ultimate success are slight.'" (quoting Moreland, 899 F .2 d at 1170)). Sun v. Forrester, 939 F.2d 924, 925 (11th Cir. 1991), reh'g denied, 503 U.S. 999 (1992); see a ls o Weeks v. Jones, 100 F.3d 124, 127 (11th Cir. 1996) (stating that "Factual allegations are f riv o lo u s for purpose of [28 U.S.C.] 1915(d) when they are `clearly baseless;' legal th e o rie s are frivolous when they are `indisputably meritless.'") (citations omitted). A p p lyin g 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 p a u p e ris 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. D O N E this the 24 day of September, 2010. /s/ Mark E. Fuller CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE th 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?