NUNEZ v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ORDER denying 21 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 1/8/2010. c/m (cc: USCA) (TMA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FAUSTO NUNEZ, Movant, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. ) ) ) ) ) ) ENTRY The movant seeks leave to proceed on appeal without prepayment of the appellate fees of $455.00. An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915; see Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 82 S. Ct. 917 (1962). "Good faith" within the meaning of § 1915 must be judged by an objective, not a subjective, standard. See Id. There is no objectively reasonable argument which the movant could present to argue that the disposition of this action was erroneous. Indeed, his request to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis does not even make reference to the rationale for the disposition in this action, much less identify an arguable basis for believing that disposition to have been incorrect. In addition, his request for the issuance of a certificate of appealability has been denied. In pursuing an appeal, therefore, the movant "is acting in bad faith . . . [because] to 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." Lee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025, 1026 (7th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, his appeal is not taken in good faith, and for this reason his request for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis (dkt 21) is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Distribution: Office of the United States Attorney firstname.lastname@example.org Fausto Nunez Reg. No. 07667-028 Fort Dix-FCI P. O. Box 2000 Fort Dix, NJ 08640
SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE United States District Court Southern District of Indiana
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?