Daniels v. Upton et al

Filing 66

ORDER denying 61 MOTION for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis; granting 52 Motion for Service and Copy of Court's March 27, 2017, Order. The Court directs the Clerk of Court to serve upon Plaintiff and non- party Daker a copy of this Order and the Court's Order dated March 27, 2017, (doc. 46). Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 07/25/2017. (thb) Modified on 7/25/2017 (thb).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
STATESBORO DIVISION

XAVIER DANIELS,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 6:16-cv-94

v.

MANAGER UPTON; WARDEN ROBERT
TOOLE; and STANLEY WILLIAMS,
Defendants.

ORDER

Presently before the Court are non-party Waseem Daker's ("Daker") Motions for Leave

to Appeal in Forma Pauperis. (Docs. 54, 61.) Daker seeks to appeal this Court's Orders

denying his Motion to Intervene, (doc. 43), and Motion to Reconsider that denial, (doc. 46). For
the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Daker's Motions for Leave to Appeal in Forma
Pauperis.

An appeal cannot be taken informa pauperis if the trial court certifies, either before or
after the notice of appeal is filed, that the appeal is not taken in good faith.

28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3). Good faith in this context must be judged by an objective
standard. Busch v. Ctv. of Volusia. 189 F.R.D. 687, 691 (M.D. Fla. 1999). A party does not

proceed in good faith when it seeks to advance a frivolous claim or argument. See Coppedge v.
United States. 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962); Whitted v. Roberts. Case No. 06-CV-776-KDB, 2010

WL 2025391, at *1 (S.D. Ala. Apr. 27, 2010). A claim or argument is frivolous when it appears

the factual allegations are clearly baseless or the legal theories are indisputably meritless.
Neitzke v. Williams. 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989); Carroll v. Gross. 984 F.2d 392, 393 (11th

Cir. 1993). Stated anotherway, an informa pauperis action is frivolous, and thus, not broughtin
good faith, if it is "without arguable merit either in law or fact." Napier v. Preslicka, 314 F.3d
528, 531 (11th Cir. 2002); Bilal v. Driver. 251 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2001). "Arguable
means capable of being convincingly argued." Sun v. Forrester, 939 F.2d 924, 925 (11th
Cir. 1991) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
For the reasons set forth in this Court's Orders dated February 17, 2017, (doc. 43), and

March 27, 2017, (doc. 46), the arguments Daker seeks to raise on appeal are without arguable
merit in either law or fact. Put simply, the Court sees no non-frivolous ground for appeal.
Consequently, the Court hereby DENIES Daker's Motions for Leave to Appeal in Forma
Pauperis because the appeal is not taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
However, the Court GRANTS Daker's Motion for Service and Copy of Court's March

27, 2017, Order. (Doc. 52.) Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to serve upon

Plaintiff and non-party Daker a copy of this Order and the Court's Order dated March 27, 2017,
(doc. 46).

SO ORDERED, this ^ffi^lav ofJuly, 2017.

lTES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF GEORGIA