BLASH et al v. AMAZON.COM

Filing 14

ORDER denying 13 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE C ASHLEY ROYAL on 3/12/2025 (elp)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION WILLIE F. WRIGHT, JR. and, TIFFANI BLASH, Plaintiffs, v. AMAZON.COM and USNIPOYA, Defendants. : : : : : : : : : : : Case No. 5:24?CV?422?CAR ORDER ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL Before the Court is pro se Plaintiffs Willie F. Wright, Jr. and Tiffani Blash’s Motion for Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) the Court’s Order dismissing their Second Amended Complaint [Doc. 9]. As explained below, Plaintiffs’ Motion [Doc. 13] is DENIED. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), “[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” “[G]ood faith’ . . . must be judged by an objective standard.”1 A petitioner demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a non?frivolous issue.2 An issue “is frivolous if it is ‘without arguable 1 Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). 2 Id.; Morris v. Ross, 664 F.2d 1032, 1033 (11th Cir. 1981). 1 merit either in law or fact.’”3 “Arguable means being capable of being convincingly argued.”4 “In deciding whether an [in forma pauperis] appeal is frivolous, a district court determines whether there is ‘a factual and legal basis . . . for the asserted wrong, however inartfully pleaded.’”5 Plaintiffs seek to appeal this Court’s dismissal of their Second Amended Complaint for failing to state any claim for relief. Because Plaintiffs proceeded IFP, the Court was required to screen their Complaint and dismiss the complaint or any portion thereof which (1) is found to be frivolous or malicious, (2) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or (3) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.6 The Court screened Plaintiffs’ original Complaint and found it contained insufficient allegations to establish the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and was an impermissible shotgun pleading.7 Plaintiffs submitted a Recast Complaint, which the Court reviewed and dismissed without prejudice as a shotgun pleading.8 Plaintiffs then submitted a Second Amended Complaint, which the Court reviewed and dismissed for failing to state 3 Napier v. Preslicka, 314 F.3d 528, 531 (11th Cir. 2002). 4 Sun v. Forrester, 939 F.2d 924, 925 (11th Cir. 1991) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); Carroll v. Gross, 984 F.2d 392, 393 (11th Cir. 1993). 5 Sun, 939 F.2d at 925 (citations omitted). 6 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b). 7 Order to Recast Complaint [Doc. 5]. 8 Order Dismissing Recast Complaint [Doc. 7]. 2 any claim for relief.9 An appeal of the Court’s Order dismissing Plaintiffs’ case is without arguable merit either in law or fact. Thus, Plaintiffs’ appeal is not taken in good faith, and their Motion for Leave to Appeal IFP must be denied. CONCLUSION As explained above, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Appeal IFP [Doc. 13] is DENIED. Any further requests to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal should be directed, on motion, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit pursuant to Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. SO ORDERED, this 12th day of March, 2025. s/ C. Ashley Royal_______________ C. ASHLEY ROYAL, SENIOR JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 Order Dismissing Second Amended Complaint [Doc. 9]. 3

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?