Green v. State Of Florida et al

Filing 181

ORDER finding as moot in part and denying in part 178 Plaintiff's Amended Motion to Appeal. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 9/12/2014. (BJB)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION REGINALD A. GREEN, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 3:12-cv-134-J-32MCR STATE OF FLORIDA, et al., Defendants. ORDER This case is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Reginald A. Green’s Amended Motion to Appeal (Doc. 178), filed on September 2, 2014. To the extent the motion seeks leave to appeal, no such leave is necessary as the Court has now adjudicated all remaining claims in this case. (See Doc. 175.) Moreover, Plaintiff has already filed a Notice of Appeal. (Doc. 179.) To the extent the motion could be construed as a motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a), it is due to be denied. The Court finds pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that this appeal is not taken in good faith as the lawsuit is frivolous for the reasons explained in the Court’s orders denying Plaintiff’s many requests for leave to proceed in forma pauperis before this Court and on appeal (Docs. 16, 17, 20, 24, 170). See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (defining “good faith” for purposes of in forma pauperis review using an objective standard of whether applicant seeks appeal of an issue that is not frivolous); also Sun v. Forrester, 939 F.2d 924 (11th Cir. 1991) (affirming denial of frivolous in forma pauperis appeal as “one without arguable merit” either factually or legally). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Amended to Appeal (Doc. 173) is MOOT in part and DENIED in part. DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida the 12th day of September, 2014. bjb Copies to: Clerk of Court, Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals Pro se plaintiff Counsel of record 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?