CABLE v. CHRYSLER GROUP, LLC

Filing 63

ORDER denying 59 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis (USCA #16-2283). Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 6/7/2016 (dist made) (CBU)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
GLENDA CABLE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
FCA US LLC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
) Case No. 1:14-cv-1853-TWP-DKL
)
)
)
)

Entry Discussing Request to Proceed on Appeal in Forma Pauperis
The plaintiff seeks leave to proceed on appeal without prepayment of the appellate fees of
$505.00. 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 (1962).
“Good faith” within the meaning of § 1915 must be judged by an objective, not a subjective,
standard. See id.
Plaintiff’s Title VII claim was rejected by the Court because plaintiff was unable to
establish that the alleged harassment was severe or pervasive or that there was a basis for employer
liability. In the notice of appeal, the plaintiff did not point to any specific error in the Court’s
entry, rather, she claims that the Court’s factual findings were not supported by the record.
However, the only finding she disputes is whether the racially offensive word found near her work
station was removed within twenty-four hours. In the factual findings, the Court found that the
offensive word was removed within twenty-four hours but acknowledged that plaintiff alleged that
she could still see a shadow of the etching. Plaintiff now claims it took several days for it to be
removed, however this assertion is not consistent with her deposition testimony or summary
judgment briefing. Even assuming plaintiff’s assertion is correct, this one factual finding does not

support any specific error in the Court’s determination that plaintiff was unable to establish that
the alleged harassment was severe or pervasive or that there was a basis for employer liability.
In pursuing an appeal, therefore, the plaintiff “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, her appeal is not taken in good faith, and for this reason her request for leave
to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis [dkt. 59] is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 6/7/2016

Distribution:
Electronically registered counsel
Glenda Cable
1732 Hogan Dr.
Kokomo, IN 46902