Berry et al v. Chicago Transit Authority et al

Filing 104

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 8/10/2011. As such, the Court grants Berry's Motion 96 to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal. [For further detail see written opinion.] Mailed notice(ca, ).

Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

Virginia M. Kendall

CASE NUMBER

8 C 5624

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

8/10/2011

Berry et al vs. Chicago Transit Authority

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

As such, the Court grants Berry’s Motion [96] to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal.

O[ For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT
Plaintiff Cynthia Berry (“Berry”) brought suit against the Chicago Transit Authority (“CTA”) and specific
CTA employees alleging hostile work environment, sex discrimination, and retaliation in violation of Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. On April 24, 2011, the Court granted the CTA’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
The Court also denied Berry’s Motion to Reconsider on June 10, 2011. Berry filed a notice of appeal with the
Seventh Circuit on July 7, 2011. She now moves to proceed on appeal of the summary judgment ruling in forma
pauperis. For the following reasons, the Court grants Berry’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal.
Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a), to be eligible to proceed in forma pauperis, Berry must
attach an affidavit to her motion detailing that: (1) she is unable to pay the fees and costs of appealing; (2) she
claims that she is entitled to redress; and (3) she clearly sets forth the issues that she plans to raise on appeal.
See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a). Moreover, the Court must determine that her appeal is taken in good faith. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). A “good faith” appeal is one where, from an objective perspective, a “reasonable person
could suppose that the appeal has some merit.” Walker v. O’Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 632 (7th Cir. 2000); Lee v.
Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025, 1026 (7th Cir. 2000). To put it in perspective, while both the “good faith” in forma
pauperis standard and issuing a certificate of appealability in a habeas case involve a threshold analysis of
whether the appellant can go forward, the certificate of appealability standard is more demanding—the petitioner
must make a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Walker, 216 F.3d at 631-32; 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2).
Here, according to Berry’s financial affidavit, she has received no income in the last year, nor has she
received any public assistance benefits. Her only asset is a car, and the exact make and model is unclear from
the affidavit. Berry states that she has no monthly expenses—she spends nothing on rent, food, clothing, medical
expenses, transportation, or recreation. Although the Court is puzzled by the fact that Berry apparently has no
expenses, it has no specific reason to believe that her sworn affidavit is inaccurate. Because Berry has minimal
8C5624 Berry et al vs. Chicago Transit Authority

Page 1 of 2

STATEMENT
assets, and no expected sources of income in the next few months, the Court finds that she is financially unable
to pay the filing fee. Second, she states that on appeal she is raising the issues of wrongful termination, sexual
harassment, and hostile work environment, as Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24 requires. Finally, for the
reasons outlined in the Court’s April 24 Memorandum Opinion and Order, Berry’s claims against the CTA are
legally and factually deficient. In fact, her claims each failed for multiple different reasons. Given the generous
“good faith” standard, though, the Court determines that Berry’s appeal is in good faith.
As such, the Court grants Berry’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal.

8C5624 Berry et al vs. Chicago Transit Authority

Page 2 of 2