Cook v. Illinois Department of Corrections

Filing 105

ORDER denying 104 Motion for reduced fees which the Court construed as a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 4/10/12. (klh, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
BETTY D. COOK,
Plaintiff,
v.
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Defendant.

No. 09-cv-0133-DRH
ORDER

HERNDON, Chief Judge:
Pending before the Court is Cook’s pro se motion for reduced fees or payment
lienency [sic] (Doc. 104). Specifically, Cook requests that the payment for the trial
transcript for appeal purposes be waived before production is commenced or
completed or that a reduced payment be considered as she does not have the means
to pay for the transcript up front. After reviewing this pleading, the Court construes
this motion as one to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Based on the following,
the Court denies the motion.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) provides that a federal district court may authorize
an appeal without prepayment of fees if the person submits an affidavit that includes
a statement of all assets he/she possesses and shows that he/she is unable to pay fees
or give security for the appeal. The affidavit also must also state the nature of the
appeal and the affiant’s belief that he/she is entitled to redress. Except as stated in
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3), a party to a district-court action who
Page 1 of 2

desires to appeal in forma pauperis must file a motion in the district court. The
party must attach an affidavit that:
(A) shows in the detail prescribed by Form 4 of the
Appendix of Forms, the party’s inability to pay or to give
security for fees and costs;
(B) claims an entitlement to redress; and
(C) states the issues that the party intends to present on
appeal.
FED. R. APP. P. 24(a)(1). A party may not proceed in forma pauperis if the trial court
certifies in writing that the appeal “is not taken in good faith.”

28 U.S.C. §

1915(a)(3);FED. R. APP. P. 24(a).
Clearly, Cook’s motion is insufficient. She has not provided any information
that is required under Rule 24(a). Thus, the Court denies at this time Cook’s motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 10th day of April, 2012.

David R. Herndon
2012.04.10
14:58:36 -05'00'
Chief Judge
United States District Court

Page 2 of 2