Heard v. Owens et al

Filing 61

ORDER DENYING 57 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. Ordered by Judge Marc Thomas Treadwell on 9/9/2010. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION ROBERT HEARD, Plaintiff, v. BRIAN OWENS, et al., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:09-CV-357 (MTT)

ORDER This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Appeal in Forma Pauperis (Doc. 57) (the "Motion"). For the following reasons, the Motion is denied. This Court dismissed the Plaintiff's case because he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. The Plaintiff wants to appeal this dismissal because he believes the dismissal to be reversible error. The Plaintiff's Motion is a one paragraph, one page, hand-written document that he filed on August 27, 2010 in which he asks this court to allow him to proceed in forma pauperis. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a) sets out the requirements for an appellant in a civil case who wishes to proceed in forma pauperis. According to Rule 24(a)(1), the appellant "must attach an affidavit that . . . (A) shows in the detail prescribed by Form 4 of the Appendix of Forms [his] inability to pay or give security for the fees and costs; (B) claims an entitlement to redress; and (C) states the issues that [he] intends to present on appeal." The Plaintiff here has not provided such an affidavit. While his Motion arguably claims an entitlement to redress, he neither shows his

inability to pay fees and costs, nor states the issues he intends to present on appeal. Therefore, the Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 24 and his Motion (Doc. 57) is DENIED. SO ORDERED, this the 9th day of September, 2010.

S/ Marc T. Treadwell

MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT jch

2