HARRIS v. OLIVER

Filing 68

Entry Discussing Request to Proceed on Appeal In Forma Pauperis - denying 67 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis, as his appeal is not taken in good faith. USCA #14-1168). Copy to petitioner via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 2/14/2014. (RSF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION

WILLIAM OSCAR HARRIS,
Petitioner,
v.
JOHN C. OLIVER,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:13-cv-043-JMS-WGH

Entry Discussing Request to Proceed on Appeal In Forma Pauperis
The petitioner is not the United States of America. The United States of America is not
seeking habeas corpus relief on behalf of William Oscar Harris. The Entry of February 3, 2014,
explains that the petitioner “is not exempt from the obligation to pay filing and other fees.” His
request to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis signed on February 6, 2014, asserting otherwise
is a continued example of this petitioner’s utter and complete failure to litigate within the bounds
of the law and to obey court orders. The parties to a lawsuit “can not pick and choose which
court orders to obey,” V.I.M. Recyclers v. Magner, 2004 WL 906313, *3 (N.D.Ill. Apr. 27,
2004), yet that is precisely what the petitioner has attempted to do in this and other litigation.
The only appealable ruling in this case was the issuance of final judgment on November
19, 2013. Yet, the notice of appeal filed on January 24, 2014, is the third appeal in the case. The
first two have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The petitioner seeks waiver of the appellate
fees with respect to the appeal docketed as No. 14-1168.
The court has already explained that the petitioner is not entitled to a categorical
exemption for the obligation to pay the appellate fees. 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. 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. 67] is
denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
02/14/2014
Date: _____________

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

Distribution:
William Oscar Harris, #40743-050, Terre Haute FCI, P.O. Box 33, Terre Haute, IN 47808
All electronically registered counsel