Heard et al v. Collins et al

Filing 22

ORDER denying 12 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 16 Motion to Inform the Court in Reality; denying 19 Application to Appeal in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 08/01/14. (sk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
ROBERT HEARD, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DOUG COLLINS, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:14-CV-0111-RWS

ORDER
On June 9, 2014, the Court entered an Order [10] dismissing this case
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The Court also addressed the question of
recusal because Defendant listed as Defendants “All U.S. District Court
Judges.” Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Reconsideration [12] in which he states
that he did not intend to include the undersigned as a defendant in this action.
His reference to “All U.S. District Court Judges” was intended to refer only to
district court judges in the D.C. District. (Pl.’s Mot. [12] at 2).Thus, Plaintiff
urges the Court to reconsider its June 9 Order. However, because the Court
found that recusal was not required, Plaintiff’s correction has no bearing on the
Court’s frivolity conclusion in the previous Order. Therefore, the Motion for
Reconsideration [12] is DENIED.

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

Plaintiff also filed a document captioned “Motion to Inform the Court in
Reality With as Much Respect as Possible!” [16]. In this document, Plaintiff
describes several parcels of real estate and several motor vehicles. He states, “I
got to have those houses.” (Pl.’s Mot. [16] at 2). He is also apparently
requesting the vehicles and a license to drive them. (Id.) He concludes by
stating that, “You know what else is required but you know I have two
crusades. You got problems legally if I miss either! Sometime you got to work
harder and longer. I will legally do what I got to do now. You know what’s
required.” (Id.). The Court is not certain to whom this message is directed or the
basis for the demands made by Plaintiff therein. In any event, to the extent
Plaintiff seeks, through this pleading, some action or remedy in this Court, the
Request is DENIED.
Finally, Plaintiff files an Application to Appeal Without Prepaying Fees
or Costs [19]. “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

2

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

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”).
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 Application to Appeal Without
Prepaying Fees or Costs [19] is DENIED.
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration [12] is
DENIED, Plaintiff’s request for relief pursuant to his “Motion to Inform the
Court in Reality With as Much Respect as Possible” [16] is DENIED, and
Plaintiff’s Application to Appeal Without Prepaying Fees or Costs [19] is
DENIED.

3

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

SO ORDERED, this 31st

day of July, 2014.

________________________________
RICHARD W. STORY
United States District Judge

4

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)