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)

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