PARKS v. KNIGHT
Filing
40
ENTRY DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL - 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. 38 ] is denied. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 3/22/2017. (JLS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
WARREN PARKS,
Petitioner,
vs.
SUPERINTENDENT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
) Case No 1:15-cv-1856-TWP-DML
)
)
)
)
Entry Denying Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal
The petitioner 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.
There is no objectively reasonable argument the petitioner could present to argue that the
disposition of this action was erroneous. Additionally, final judgment was entered in this action on
September 22, 2016, making this notice of appeal untimely. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). In pursuing
an appeal, therefore, the petitioner “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. 38] is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 3/22/2017
Electronic distribution to counsel of record via CM/ECF and to:
WARREN PARKS
116977
PENDLETON - CIF
CORRECTIONAL INDUSTRIAL FACILITY
Electronic Service Participant - Court only
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?