Ledbetter v. Good Samaritan Ministries et al

Filing 134

ORDER, denying 127 MOTION for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis, 128 MOTION Expulsion or Expunging a Document, and 129 MOTION to Copy filed by Linzie J. Ledbetter. See Order for details. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 6/28/17. (lmp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
LINZIE J. LEDBETTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
GOOD SAMARITAN MINISTRIES, a
Project of Interfaith Counsel, BOBBY
ANDERSON and MICHAEL HEATH,

No. 13-cv-308-DRH-SCW

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
HERNDON, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court on pro se plaintiff Linzie Ledbetter’s motion
for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (Doc. 127), motion for “expulsion, or
expunging a document” (Doc. 128), and motion for transcripts (Doc. 129). For the
reasons stated below, the motions are denied.
Ledbetter filed the underlying lawsuit pursuant to Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, as amended (42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.), 42 U.S.C. § 1981,
and the Civil Rights Act of 1991 alleging retaliation arising from his termination
from Good Samaritan Ministries on October 20, 2010. His claims were tried to a
jury on April 12, 2017, which rendered a verdict in favor of the defendants Good
Samaritan Ministries, Bobby Anderson, and Michael Heath (Doc. 103).
Judgement reflecting the same was entered on April 14, 2017 (Doc. 107). On May
Page 1 of 7

11, 2017, Ledbetter filed a motion for new trial (Doc. 116), which the Court
denied after finding that Ledbetter’s claims alleged in the motion had no merit,
and there was no indication that the jury’s verdict was against the manifest weight
of the evidence presented at trial (Doc. 124). Following the Court’s ruling,
Ledbetter filed a notice of appeal on June 20, 2017 (Doc. 126). On that same day,
he filed the motions at issue.

1. Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis (Doc. 127)
Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that a party to
an action in federal district court who desires to appeal in forma pauperis must
first file a motion in the district court requesting leave to appeal without payment
of fees and costs. See FED. R. APP. P. 24(a)(1). The motion must be supported by
an affidavit that: (1) shows the party’s inability to pay or to give security for fees
and costs; (2) claims an entitlement to redress; and (3) states the issues that the
party intends to present on appeal. See id. “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). As to the good faith requirement, the Court must “find that 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). That said, a district court is under an obligation “not to apply an
inappropriately high standard when making good faith determinations.” Pate v.

Stevens, 163 F.3d 437, 438 (7th Cir. 1998).
Page 2 of 7

In this case, the Court finds the instant appeal is not taken in good faith, as
a reasonable person could not suppose that the appeal has some merit. 1 First,
Ledbetter fails to state in his motion or his notice of appeal the grounds upon
which he is seeking to have the judgment reversed. Even assuming, arguendo, that
Ledbetter’s motion for new trial and motion for hearing, put this Court on notice
of the issues that Ledbetter wishes to appeal, Pate v. Stevens, 163 F.3d 437, 439
(7th Cir. 1998), the Court cannot say that Ledbetter’s motion for leave to appeal

in forma pauperis is in good faith because Ledbetter’s arguments in his motion
for new trial and motion for hearing were frivolous.
In Ledbetter’s motion for new trial, he alleged that he “presented enough
prima facie evidence at trial that the jury should have enter[ed] a verdict in favor
of the plaintiff” (Doc. 116). In the memorandum filed in support of his motion,
Ledbetter also listed numerous issues dating back to the discovery process, which
the Court concluded had no merit, given that the matters were resolved by the
magistrate judge well in advance of trial and no objections were raised during
trial. Also, Ledbetter challenged the testimony and credibility of witnesses,
specifically Bobby Anderson. Once again, no objections were raised during the
testimony at trial to that effect and credibility determinations are for the jury. By
failing to object, Ledbetter may not raise the issue for the first time in a motion
1

Although this Court has previously granted Ledbetter IFP status, a substantial period of time has
passed since that determination was made. The Court granted IFP status to Ledbetter at the time
he filed his complaint, which was shortly after he was fired from his employment. Based on his
affidavit, he now has another job working for Jackson County Mass Transit and also receives
Workers’ Compensation payments weekly.
Page 3 of 7

for new trial or on appeal. Christmas v City of Chicago, 682 F.3d 632, 640(7th
Cir. 2012). Also, an appellate court does not make credibility determinations or
weigh the evidence. Schandelmeier-Bartels v. Chicago Park District, 634 F.3d 372
(7th Cir. 2011). Thus, Ledbetter’s motion for new trial fails to set forth a legal
argument that would allow Ledbetter to prevail on appeal.
Furthermore, when ruling on Ledbetter’s motion for hearing, the Court
found that many of Ledbetter’s claims were frivolous, untimely, or moot:
“Ledbetter raises multiple issues dating back to discovery that
warrant a hearing to find Bobby Anderson and Daniel Wilke in
contempt. First, many of Ledbetter’s allegations in the pending
motion address discovery matters. Although plaintiff did seek to
compel discovery documents from the defendants, the matter was
resolved during a discovery dispute conference before Magistrate
Judge Williams (Docs. 33& 34). Thereafter, defendants complied
with the Court’s order and supplemented their responses to specific
interrogatories propounded by plaintiff (Doc 35). Also, the Court
denied plaintiff’s requests for sanctions or contempt charges (Docs.
24 & 30). More significantly, the Court notes that plaintiff could and
should have handled issues with discovery prior to trial. The Court
finds these claims to be unpersuasive.
Next, Ledbetter raises issue with matters that are clearly differences
of perception regarding the facts of the case. These particular matters
were resolved by the jury upon rendering a verdict in this case. For
example, plaintiff’s arguments that address inconsistent testimony
given by Mr. Anderson go to the weight of his testimony, not its
admissibility. Furthermore, plaintiff took no action at trial suggesting
that he was surprised, or that undue hardship developed, when the
testimony of Good Samaritan Ministries staff members was given.
The Court finds these claims to be unpersuasive.
Finally, Ledbetter’s remaining issues are also matters otherwise
resolved by the jury verdict in that the jury accepted the defendants’
theory of the case opposed to that of the plaintiff, or believed the
plaintiff did not, in fact, present a prima facie case. Given that the
jury rendered a general verdict, we are not able to determine which

Page 4 of 7

served as the basis for the juror’s verdict. Thus, the Court ultimately
finds Ledbetter’s remaining claims to be unpersuasive.”
(Doc. 125). Given that the arguments raised in Ledbetter’s motions were frivolous
and set forth no legal arguments, and no other grounds for appeal were
mentioned, the Court is unable to say that Ledbetter’s appeal is in good faith.
Therefore, the Court can only determine from the record before it that Ledbetter’s
appeal is in bad faith, and he has failed to meet the requirements of Fed. R. App.
P. 24(a)91). Accordingly, his motion is DENIED. Ledbetter shall tender the
appellate filing and docketing fee of $505.00 to the Clerk of the Court on or before
July 28, 2017, or he may reapply to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.

2. Motion for Expulsion (Doc. 128)
Next, Ledbetter filed a motion for expulsion or expunging of the “Letter to
Pro Bono Attorney A. Courtney Cox regarding appointment re Linzie J. Ledbetter
to case (Doc. 53)” (Doc. 128). Ledbetter argues that he “was never in prison at any
time in his life. I do not know how this mistake was made nor do I care how it
happened, but the Plaintiff wants this correct immediately. There would be
egregious harm and injury to the Plaintiff if this false document was sent to the 7th
Circuit Court of Appeals during the Plaintiff’s Appeal in the Record on Appeal.”
(Doc. 128).

Page 5 of 7

Upon review of the record, the February 26, 2015, letter described by
Plaintiff Ledbetter is clearly a form letter from the Clerk's Office. Although said
letter is mistaken about Ledbetter’s status, the letter is part of the record in this
case. Most cases wherein the issues surrounding what is described in the letter
arise

from

prison

litigation

and

the

mistake,

though

unfortunate,

is

understandable. The appellate court personnel are well familiar with the letter
and will see it for what it is and Mr. Ledbetter will suffer no harm let alone
egregrious harm. Accordingly, his motion for expulsion or expunging the letter is
DENIED.
3. Motion for Transcripts (Doc. 129)
Ledbetter’s final motion is one in which he requests the transcripts from
his trial for his appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) states, in part, that “[f]ees for
transcripts furnished in other proceedings to persons permitted to appeal in

forma pauperis shall also be paid by the United States if the trial judge or a
circuit judge certifies that the appeal is not frivolous (but presents a substantial
question).” Here, Ledbetter fails to satisfy the necessary conditions to obtain
copies of the transcripts free of charge. Because the Court certified, when ruling
on Ledbetter’s motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (Doc. 127) above, that
Ledbetter’s appeal is not taken in good faith and does not present a non-frivolous,
substantial question, and because the Court does not have verified information
regarding petitioner’s current financial status, Ledbetter’s motion for transcripts
is DENIED.
Page 6 of 7

Conclusion
Accordingly, Ledbetter’s motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on
appeal, motion for expulsion, and motion for transcripts are DENIED. Ledbetter
shall tender the appellate filing and docketing fee of $505.00 to the Clerk of the
Court on or before July 28, 2017, or he may reapply to the Seventh Circuit Court
of Appeals for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. The Clerk is
instructed to immediately notify the parties and Seventh Circuit of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 28th day of June, 2016.

Digitally signed by
Judge David R.
Herndon
Date: 2017.06.28
15:15:40 -05'00'
United States District Judge

Page 7 of 7