HILL v. BAYSIDE WOODS, HOA INC. et al

Filing 83

ORDER denying 81 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Because Ms. Hill's Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal indicated her intent that it serve as a notice of appeal if the Court denied her extension requ est, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk to re-docket the motion as a Notice of Appeal, 79 , and initiate the appellate process. SEE ORDER. Copy sent to Plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 3/28/2017. (JRB) Modified on 3/29/2017 (JRB).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
KRISTIN S. HILL,
Plaintiff,
vs.
BAYSIDE WOODS, HOA INC.,
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION SERVICES
OF INDIANA,
PAYLEASE WEB,
EADS, MURRAY AND PUGH PC,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:16-cv-00916-JMS-DKL

ORDER
On March 27, 2017, Plaintiff Kristin S. Hill filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis on Appeal, [Filing No. 81], and a Docketing Statement, [Filing No. 82]. Ms. Hill points
out that in her previously filed Motion for Extension of Time to File a Notice of Appeal, she
alternatively asked that the motion be deemed a notice of appeal if her extension request was
denied. [Filing No. 81 at 1-2.] Local Rule 7-1 provides that “[m]otions must be filed separately”
and that alternative motions may only be filed as a single document “if each is named in the title.”
Ms. Hill’s filing did not comply with this rule. [Filing No. 79 (titled “Appellant’s Motion for
Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal”).] The Court denied Ms. Hill’s extension request but
did not acknowledge her alternate request that her motion be deemed a notice of appeal if it was
denied. [Filing No. 80.]
The timely filing of a notice of appeal is both “mandatory and jurisdictional,” and a notice
filed too late will preclude appellate jurisdiction. Remer v. Burlington Area Sch. Dist., 205 F.3d
990, 994 (7th Cir. 2000). Ultimately, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals determines the

sufficiency and timeliness of a notice of appeal. Id. at 994-95. Because Ms. Hill’s Motion for
Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal indicated her intent that it serve as a notice of appeal
if the Court denied her extension request, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk to re-docket the motion
as a Notice of Appeal, [Filing No. 79], and initiate the appellate process.
Ms. Hill proceeded in forma pauperis before this Court, [Filing No. 5], and now seeks
leave to proceed on appeal without prepayment of the appellate fees of $505.00, [Filing No. 81].
An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if this 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 Ms. Hill could present to argue that the disposition
of this action was erroneous. 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, because Ms. Hill’s appeal is not taken in good faith, her
request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is DENIED. [Filing No. 81.]

Date: March 28, 2017

Distribution via US Mail:
KRISTIN S. HILL
6412 Bay Vista Court
Indianapolis, IN 46250
Distribution via CM/ECF:
John W. Richards
BUNGER & ROBERTSON
[e-mail]

2

Nicholas Ward Levi
KIGHTLINGER & GRAY
[e-mail]
Peter A. Velde
KIGHTLINGER & GRAY
[e-mail]
Michael E. Brown
KIGHTLINGER & GRAY LLP
[e-mail]
Thomas R. Schultz
SCHULTZ & POGUE LLP
[e-mail]
Jonathan Lawrence Bucher, Jr.
SCHULTZ & POGUE, LLP
[e-mail]

3