Dollar v. Carter et al

Filing 63

ORDER DENYING 58 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. Ordered by Judge Marc Thomas Treadwell on 9/8/2011. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
WESLEY EUGENE DOLLAR,

)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v.
)
)
WARDEN ALAN CARTER, et al.,
)
)
Defendants. )
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:10-CV-208 (MTT)

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff Wesley Eugene Dollar’s Motion for
Permission to Appeal In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 58) (the “Motion”).1 For the following
reasons, the Motion is denied.
The Plaintiff seeks to appeal this Court’s previous Order. (Doc. 54). In the
previous Order, the Court adopted the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge which
stated that the Plaintiff’s claims were precluded by the doctrine of res judicata.
Therefore, the Magistrate Judge recommended granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
This Court denied the Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider, and the Plaintiff now
seeks to appeal the Court’s Order without having to pay costs. He filed with his Motion
an Affidavit. The Plaintiff filled out the financial information requested in the form
Affidavit, but failed to elaborate his stated issues on appeal.

1
Although Plaintiff filled out the regular Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, rather than the
Motion to Appeal In Forma Pauperis, the Plaintiff’s intent was to file a Motion for Permission to
Appeal In Forma Pauperis because judgment on his claims has been rendered by this Court.

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.” Here, the Plaintiff’s Affidavit is insufficient in that it neither claims
an entitlement to redress nor states the issues that are presented on appeal. Therefore,
the Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 24 and his Motion (Doc. 58) is
DENIED without prejudice. If the Plaintiff wishes to proceed with his appeal, he must
pay the entire $455.00 appellate filing fee, or he may have one opportunity to amend his
Motion to conform to the standards set out by Fed. R. App. Proc. 24(a).
SO ORDERED, this 8th day of September, 2011.

S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
bnw

2