PARKS v. CITY OF RICHMOND, INDIANA et al

Filing 15

ORDER denying 10 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 5/23/2012. Copy via US Mail to Plaintiff. (cc: USCA re: CA #12-2231.) (TMA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
WARREN PARKS,
vs.

Plaintiff,

CITY OF RICHMOND, INDIANA, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:12-cv-0611-JMS-MJD
CA #12-2231

ENTRY
The plaintiff’s request to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis has been
considered. The plaintiff is not eligible for in forma pauperis status because of 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g) and the plaintiff’s prior abusive litigation undertaken in federal
court when he was a prisoner as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h). As the plaintiff is
aware, the cases triggering the § 1915(g) barrier include the following:
Parks v. Brookville I.G.A., 1:07-cv-1369-DFH-JMS (dismissed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A) (Jan. 24, 2008)
Parks v. Hon. John Williams, 1:07-cv-1463-JDT-WTL (dismissed pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A) (Nov. 20, 2007)
Parks v. Hon. John Williams, 1:07-cv-1463-JDT-WTL (in forma pauperis
status denied on appeal because appeal frivolous) (Dec. 13, 2007)
Parks v. Brookville I.G.A., et al., 1:08-cv-121-LJM-WTL (dismissed pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A) (March 4, 2008)
In the circumstances described above, the plaintiff was not eligible to proceed
in forma pauperis as to his lawsuit and is likewise not eligible for that status on
appeal. The lawsuit was summarily dismissed based on Sloan v. Lesza, 181 F.3d
857, 859 (7th Cir. 1999), because “[a]n effort to bamboozle the court by seeking
permission to proceed in forma pauperis after a federal judge has held that §1915(g)
applies to a particular litigant will lead to immediate termination of the suit” and
the plaintiff offers no suggestion of error in the dismissal.

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 (1962). “Good faith” within the meaning of ' 1915 must be
judged by an objective, not a subjective, standard. Id. A petitioner demonstrates
good faith when he seeks appellate review of any issue that is not frivolous. Farley
v. United States, 354 U.S. 521 (1957) (absent some evident improper motive, the
applicant establishes good faith by presenting any issue that is not plainly
frivolous); U.S. v. Gicinto, 114 F.Supp. 929 (W.D.Mo. 1953) (the application should
be denied if the trial court is of the opinion that the appeal is frivolous, and without
merit, and a futile proceeding). Apart from the plaintiff’s ineligibility to proceed on
appeal in forma pauperis, in pursuing an appeal the plaintiff Ais 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). The plaintiff’s request to
proceed on appeal in forma pauperis [10] is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

05/23/2012
Date: __________________
_______________________________

Distribution:
Warren Parks
DOC #116977
Correctional Industrial Facility
Inmate Mail/Parcels
5124 West Reformatory Road
Pendleton, IN 46064

Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana