Eckardt v. Kouri et al

Filing 42

ORDER denying 39 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/17/2011. (cc: Pro Se Plf and 7th Circuit COA)(RK, ilcd)

E-FILED

Wednesday, 17 August, 2011 11:45:57 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

AMY ELISE ECKARDT,
Plaintiff,
v.
JUDGE STEPHEN KOURI, JUDGE
RICHARD MCCOY, JUDGE ALBERT
PURHAM,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 11-1011

ORDER
This matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff Amy Elise Eckardt’s (“Eckardt”) Motion
to Appeal In Forma Pauperis [#39]. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion [#39] is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
On January 11, 2011, Eckardt filed this case against Judges Stephen Kouri, Richard McCoy,
and Albert Purham. Plaintiff sought and was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis [#2].
Eckardt essentially claims that the Defendant Judges improperly handled her child custody case and
that her rights were, therefore, violated. The Magistrate Judge issued his Report & Recommendation
[#29], recommending that Defendants McCoy and Kouri’s Motion to Dismiss [#18] be allowed and
that Plaintiff’s claims be dismissed with prejudice. This Court issued its Order [#37], adopting the
Report & Recommendation in its entirety. Defendants McCoy and Kouri were terminated as parties,
and Plaintiff’s claims against them were dismissed. Plaintiff filed her Notice of Appeal [#38] on
August 11, 2011 along with the present Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis [#39].

DISCUSSION

Eckardt seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 24(a)(3) provides that
“a party who was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in the
district court action . . . may proceed on appeal in forma pauperis
without further authorization, unless the district court–before or after
the notice of appeal is filed–certifies that the appeal is not taken in
good faith or finds that the party is not otherwise entitled to proceed
in forma pauperis and states in writing its reasons for the certification
or finding . . .”
This “bad faith” standard is also the same standard employed in Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
Different from the standard associated with merit, the Seventh Circuit has suggested that a finding
of bad faith is a higher standard. Newlin v. Helman, 123 F.3d 429, 433 (7th Cir. 1997). However,
more recent case law has backed away from Newlin, finding that bad faith is essentially equivalent
to a finding of frivolousness. Lee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025, 1026 (7th Cir. 2000). “[T]o sue in bad
faith means merely to sue on the basis of a frivolous claim, which is to say a claim that no
reasonable person could suppose to have any merit.” Id.
Eckardt’s claims clearly fall under the Defendant Judges’ judicial immunity and otherwise
fall under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. As such, Eckardt’s claims are without merit, and thus an
appeal would be frivolous. As such, Eckardt’s Motion to Appeal in forma pauperis [#39] is
DENIED.
ENTERED this 17th day of August, 2011.

s/ Michael M. Mihm
Michael M. Mihm
United States District Judge

2