Dollar v. Carter et al
Filing
68
ORDER DENYING 65 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. Ordered by Judge Marc Thomas Treadwell on 9/16/2011. (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. 65) (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 has already denied the Plaintiff’s first and second Motions to
Reconsider, and the Plaintiff now seeks to appeal the Court’s Order without having to
pay costs for the second time. Plaintiff’s first Motion for Permission to Appeal In Forma
Pauperis was denied on September 8, 2011. (Doc. 63).
1
The Plaintiff did not fill out the regular Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, nor did he fill out
the Motion to Appeal In Forma Pauperis. Instead, the Plaintiff wrote out his Motion for Leave to
Proceed on Appeal In Forma Pauperis.
In this Motion, the Plaintiff asserts that the Motion also represents a “Poverty
Affidavit.” Even if such is the case, the Poverty Affidavit does not fulfill the requirements
set forth in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a).
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. 65) 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 16th day of September, 2011.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
bnw
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?