Jacoby v. Dunn et al (INMATE 2)

Filing 98

ORDER: This cause is now before the court on plaintiff's "Notice of Intent to Appeal" (doc. no. 96 ), which the court is treating as a notice of appeal, a motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis, and a motion to reconsider the entry of judgment. It is ORDERED that: (1) The plaintiff's notice of intent to appeal (doc. no. 96 ) is treated as a notice of appeal. (2) The plaintiff's motion to proceed on appeal in form pauperis (doc. no. 96 ) is denied; and the app eal in this cause is certified, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a), as not taken in good faith. (3) The plaintiff's motion to reconsider the entry of judgment (doc. no. 96 ) is denied. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 10/4/2019. Copy furnished to Appeals Clerk. (dmn, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
BRENT JACOBY,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN KARLA JONES,
et al.,
Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:15cv382-MHT
(WO)

ORDER
This cause is now before the court on plaintiff's
“Notice of Intent to Appeal” (doc. no. 96), which the
court is treating as a notice of appeal, a motion for
leave to appeal in forma pauperis, and a motion to
reconsider the entry of judgment.
Regarding the motion for leave to appeal in forma
pauperis, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) provides that, "An appeal
may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court
certifies
faith."

in

writing

that

it

is

not

taken

in

good

In making this determination as to good faith,

a court must use an objective standard, such as whether
1

the appeal is "frivolous," Coppedge v. United States,
369

U.S.

merit."

438,

445

(1962),

or

"has

no

substantive

United States v. Bottoson, 644 F.2d 1174, 1176

(5th Cir. Unit B May 15, 1981) (per curiam); see also
Rudolph v. Allen, 666 F.2d 519, 520 (11th Cir. 1982)
(per curiam); Morris v. Ross, 663 F.2d 1032 (11th Cir.
1981).

Applying this standard, this court is of the

opinion, for the reasons stated in the recommendation
of the magistrate judge, that the plaintiff lacks a
valid

legal

or

factual

basis

for

appeal,

and,

accordingly, an appeal would be frivolous and not taken
in good faith.

See, e.g., Rudolph v. Allen, supra;

Brown v. Pena, 441 F. Supp. 1382 (S.D. Fla. 1977),
aff'd without opinion, 589 F.2d 1113 (5th Cir. 1979).
***
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
(1)

The

plaintiff's

notice

of

intent

to

appeal

(doc. no. 96) is treated as a notice of appeal.
(2) The plaintiff’s motion to proceed on appeal in
forma pauperis (doc. no. 96) is denied; and the appeal
2

in this cause is certified, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a), as not taken in good faith.
(3) The plaintiff's motion to reconsider the entry
of judgment (doc. no. 96) is denied.
DONE, this the 4th day of October, 2019.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson____
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3