Hardy v. Montgomery Clerk et al (INMATE 1)

Filing 10

ORDER: Before the court is Plaintiff Alfred David Hardy's 7 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. Accordingly, and for the reasons stated in the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 4 ), Plaintiffs appeal is without a legal o r factual basis, has no substantive merit, and is frivolous for purposes of the IFP motion. Therefore, it is ORDERED that Petitioners motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (Doc. 7 ) is DENIED as further set out in the order. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 11/9/2015. (dmn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
ALFRED DAVID HARDY, III,
Plaintiff,
v.
MONTGOMERY CLERK, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 2:15-CV-597-WKW
(WO)

ORDER
Before the court is Plaintiff Alfred David Hardy’s motion for leave to appeal in
forma pauperis (“IFP”). (Doc. # 7.) The motion is due to be denied.
“An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing
that it is not taken in good faith.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). In determining whether an
appeal is taken in good faith, the court uses an objective standard to determine whether
the appeal is frivolous. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962) (“[A]
[petitioner’s] good faith in this type of case [is] demonstrated when he seeks appellate
review of any issue not frivolous.”). An appeal is “frivolous” when “it has no substantive
merit.” United States v. Bottoson, 644 F.2d 1174, 1176 (5th Cir. Unit B May 1981).1
This case was dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
Hardy’s complaint alleges that, in August 1996, a Montgomery Municipal Court used an
1

In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the Eleventh
Circuit adopted as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down
prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.

incorrect or “unverified” social security number on a case action summary report. Hardy
requests relief in the form of an investigation into the municipal court’s use of the
incorrect social security number and an injunction requiring the municipal court to
provide any available information on its use of the incorrect social security number. As
the Magistrate Judge explained in his Recommendation (Doc. # 4), the complaint is
barred by the applicable statute of limitations, and it does not allege any facts that could
support a claim upon which relief could be granted. For the same reasons that the
complaint is frivolous, the appeal is also frivolous.
Accordingly, and for the reasons stated in the Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge (Doc. # 4), Plaintiff’s appeal is without a legal or factual basis, has no substantive
merit, and is frivolous for purposes of the IFP motion.
Therefore, it is ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for leave to appeal in forma
pauperis (Doc. # 7) is DENIED.
DONE this 9th day of November, 2015.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2