GILES v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ORDER denying 19 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. Ordered by U.S. District Judge C ASHLEY ROYAL on 4/28/14 (lap) ***
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ADOLFUS O’BRYAN GILES,
NO. 3:13‐CV‐101 (CAR)
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, :
ORDER ON MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Pro se Plaintiff Adolfus O’Bryan Giles moves to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”)
on appeal from the Court’s April 9, 2014 Order dismissing the instant case. Pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915, this Court may “authorize the commencement, prosecution or defense
of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal, or appeal therein, without
prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that
includes a statement of all assets such [person] possesses that the person is unable to
pay such fees or give security therefor.”1 In addition, Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure provides:
[A] party to a district‐court action who desires to appeal in forma
pauperis must file a motion in the district court. The party must attach
an affidavit that:
1 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). “Despite the statuteʹs use of the phrase ‘prisoner possesses,’ the affidavit
requirement applies to all persons requesting leave to proceed IFP.” Martinez v. Kristi Kleaners,
364 F.3d 1305, 1306 n.2 (11th Cir. 2004).
(A) shows … the party’s inability to pay or to give security for fees and
(B) claims an entitlement to redress; and
(C) states the issues that the party intends to present on appeal.2
Thus, to proceed IFP on appeal, the moving party must show both an inability to pay
and that the appeal is brought in good faith.
In this case, Plaintiff has demonstrated an inability to pay, but his appeal is not
taken in good faith. A party demonstrates good faith by seeking appellate review of
any issue that is not frivolous when judged under an objective standard.3 An IFP action
is frivolous, and thus not brought in good faith, if it is “without arguable merit either in
law or fact.”4 As explained in the Court’s April 9, 2014 Order, Plaintiff’s claims are
foreclosed by quasi‐judicial immunity. In addition, Plaintiff has not identified a legal
point on which to base his appeal pursuant to Rule 24(a)(1)(C). Accordingly, the Court
certifies that Plaintiff’s appeal is not taken in good faith, and his Motion for Permission
to Appeal In Forma Pauperis [Doc. 19] is DENIED. Plaintiff is advised to consult Rule
24(a)(5) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
SO ORDERED, this 28th day of April, 2014.
S/ C. Ashley Royal
C. ASHLEY ROYAL, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 Fed. R. App. P. 24(a).
3 See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962); United States v. Wilson, 707 F. Supp. 1582,
1583 (M.D. Ga. 1989).
4 Napier v. Preslicka, 314 F.3d 528, 531 (11th Cir. 2002).
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?