White et al vs. Jay Finch, et al

Filing 22

ORDER ADOPTING 20 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ; denying 17 18 Motions for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. The Clerk is directed to collect the $455 appellate filing fee pursuant to PLRA. Signed by Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren on April 9, 2012. (src)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER NEWTON WHITE and
HELEN LOUISE WHITE
v.

PLAINTIFF

No. 11-5189

JUDGE JAY FINCH, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS
O R D E R

NOW on this 9th day of April 2012, comes on for consideration
the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 20),
and the Objection filed by plaintiff Christopher Newton White (Doc.
21).

The Court, having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation and plaintiff’s Objection thereto, finds and orders
as follows:
1.

Plaintiffs are proceeding before this Court pro se and in

forma pauperis.

Plaintiffs filed their complaint on August 5,

2011, under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Plaintiffs’

claims arise out of a decision made by Judge Finch on September 17,
2003, to terminate Christopher Newton White’s parental rights to
his two biological children.

Mr. White did not appeal Judge

Finch’s Order terminating his parental rights.
On

November

25,

2008,

the

sought,

and

Judge

Finch

Services

Arkansas

Department

entered,

a

of

Human

retaining

order

prohibiting plaintiffs and other members of the White family from,
inter

alia,

children.

having

any

contact

with

Mr.

White’s

biological

2.

On January 6, 2012, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report

and Recommendation, in which she recommended that plaintiffs’
complaint be dismissed in its entirety because plaintiffs’ claims
are

bared

by

the

statute

of

limitations;

the

Rooker-Feldman

doctrine precludes this Court’s review of some of plaintiffs’
claims; Judge Finch and Brenda DeShields, the Benton County Clerk,
are entitled to immunity; and other named defendants are not state
actors and, thus, cannot be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On February 15, 2012, this Court adopted the Report and
Recommendation in toto and dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint.
3.

On March 8, 2012, Christopher Newton White filed a Notice

of Appeal (Doc. 16) and on the same day both plaintiffs filed
separate applications to appeal in forma pauperis (Docs. 17 and
18).
4.

On March 12, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued her Report

and Recommendation in which she recommended that both applications
for leave to appeal in forma pauperis be denied as the appeal is
not taken in good faith.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) (providing

that an appeal “may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial
court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.”).
5.

Christopher

Newton

White

objects

to

the

Report

and

Recommendation on the grounds that he “does not and has not sought
to challenge” the termination of his parental rights as he is a
“sentient” and “was not and never will be and can not be enjoined
as a party to any such alleged ‘Termination Hearings’. . . .”

The Court finds that White’s objections are without merit and
do not provide the Court with any basis on which to reject the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.
IT

IS

THEREFORE

ORDERED

that

defendant’s

objection

is

overruled.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of
the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 20) is adopted in toto.
IT

IS

FURTHER

ORDERED

that,

pursuant

to

28

U.S.C.

§

1915(a)(3), the Court hereby certifies that plaintiffs’ appeal is
not taken in good faith and, therefore, plaintiffs’ applications to
appeal in forma pauperis (Docs. 17 and 18) are hereby denied.
The Clerk is directed to collect the $455 appellate filing fee
pursuant

to

the

terms

of

the

Prison

Litigation

Reform

Act.

Plaintiff may, of course, renew his motion for leave to appeal in
forma pauperis with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Jimm Larry Hendren
JIMM LARRY HENDREN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-