O'Quinn v. Chapman

Filing 65

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, The Court CERTIFIES that this appeal is not taken in good faith and accordingly DENIES the Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis (Doc. 62 ). The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send a copy of this order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 7/29/2015. (jdh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CHESTER O’QUINN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CHAPMAN, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 14-cv-00407-JPG-PMF

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Chester O’Quinn’s Motion (Doc. 62) to
Appeal in Forma Pauperis. The Plaintiff does not need the Court’s permission to proceed on
appeal in forma pauperis because the Court determined at the trial level that he was permitted to
proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 14). “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 certifies or a statute provides otherwise. Fed. R. App. P.
24(a)(3).
However, a court can deny a qualified plaintiff leave to file in forma pauperis if – before
or after the notice of appeal is filed- the court 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. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3)(A). When assessing a petition to proceed in forma pauperis, a
district court should inquire into the merits of the petitioner’s claims, and if the court finds them
to be frivolous, it should deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Lucien v. Roegner, 682 F.2d
625, 626 (7th Cir. 1982).

In this matter, Plaintiff was granted in forma pauperis (Doc. 14) in the district-court
action. The majority of the defendants were dismissed on the merits review pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §1915A (Doc. 13) and the matter proceeded against the remaining defendants, Chapman
and Spiller (Spiller in his official capacity based solely on Plaintiff’s request for injunctive
relief.) Defendant Chapman was granted summary judgment based on Plaintiff’s failure to
exhaust administrative remedies (Doc. 54) and as the sole remaining individual defendant was
dismissed, the matter was dismissed without prejudice.
The test for determining if an appeal is in good faith or not frivolous is whether any of the
legal points are reasonably arguable on their merits. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325
(1989) (citing Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)); Walker v. O’Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 632
(7th Cir. 2000). In this matter, there does not appear to be any legal points that are reasonably
arguable on their merits.
Therefore, the Court CERTIFIES that this appeal is not taken in good faith and
accordingly DENIES the Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis
(Doc. 62 ). The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send a copy of this order to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 7/29/2015
s/J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE