FuQua v. Massey et al

Filing 48

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 42 Motion for Permission to Appeal in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 7/16/2014. (cem)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
LASHAWN FUQUA,
Plaintiff,
v.
TERRY MASSEY, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO.
1:13-CV-3611-RWS

ORDER
This case is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff’s Application
to Appeal In Forma Pauperis [42]. Plaintiff brought this action on behalf of her
daughter who was a minor at the time of the underlying events. Plaintiff alleges
that Defendants violated her daughter’s constitutional rights by prosecuting her
in municipal court for public indecency and loitering without subject matter or
in personam jurisdiction. The Court entered an Order [39] dismissing the action
because Plaintiff is not permitted to represent her daughter in an action brought
on her daughter’s behalf. “[P]arents who are not attorneys may not bring a pro
se action on their child’s behalf.” Devine v. Indian River County School Board,
121 F.3d 576, 582 (11th Cir. 1997), overruled in part on other grounds by

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

Winkelman ex. rel. Winkelman v. Parma City School District, 550 U.S. 516,
535 (2007). The Court also denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike [15], construed
Motion for Recusal [21], and Request for Entry of Default [25]. Plaintiff filed a
Notice of Appeal [41] seeking to appeal all of the Court’s rulings. Plaintiff also
filed an Application to Appeal In Forma Pauperis [42].
“An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies
in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); See Ghee
v. Retailers Nat’l Bank, 271 Fed. Appx. 858, 859-60 (11th Cir. 2008) (citing
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962), for the proposition that a
“party demonstrates good faith by seeking appellate review of any issue that is
not frivolous when examined under an objective standard,” and noting that a
non-frivolous claim is one “capable of being convincingly argued,” so that
“where a claim is arguable, but ultimately will be unsuccessful, it should be
allowed to proceed”) (internal quotations omitted); DeSantis v. United Techs.
Corp., 15 F. Supp. 2d 1285, 1288-89 (M.D. Fla. 1998) (stating that good faith
“must be judged by an objective, not a subjective, standard” and that an
appellant “demonstrates good faith when he seeks appellate review of any issue
that is not frivolous”).

2
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

Plaintiff has not presented a non-frivolous issue for appellate review.
Accordingly, the Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that Plaintiff’s
appeal is not taken in good faith. Plaintiff’s Motion for Permission to Appeal In
Forma Pauperis [42] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 16th day of July, 2014.

_______________________________
RICHARD W. STORY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)