Keeler v. Aramark

Filing 55

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 52 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. Plaintiff Keeler's appeal is certified as not taken in good faith. Signed by District Judge Eric F. Melgren on 5/14/2013. Mailed to pro se party Quincey Gerald Keeler by regular mail. (alm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

QUINCEY GERALD KEELER, also known
as JERRY,
Plaintiff,

v.

Case No. 11-1372-EFM

ARAMARK,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Quincey Gerald Keeler filed suit against Defendant ARAMARK, his former
employer, alleging twenty-five claims of various forms of wrongful termination, defamation, and
conspiracy to commit civil wrongs and torts. This Court granted ARAMARK’s motion for
summary judgment on all claims because a reasonable jury would necessarily find (1) that
ARAMARK made the decision to terminate Keeler before he engaged in protected action and
without a retaliatory motive, and (2) that Keeler could not prove all elements of his claims of
defamation and civil conspiracy. The Court denied Keeler’s motion for reconsideration because
Keeler failed to identify an error in the Courts disposition of this case. Keeler now seeks leave to
appeal to the Tenth Circuit in forma pauperis. The Court denies Keeler’s motion because his
appeal is not taken in good faith.

Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure permit a party who has not
previously been granted in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status in a case to request that the district
court grant the party leave to appeal to the circuit courts IFP.1 The district court may, however,
deny the motion and notify the parties and the circuit court if the district court certifies that the
appeal is not taken in good faith.2 Here, Keeler’s appeal to the Tenth Circuit states that he seeks
review of “the case claims in whole” without alleging any specific error on the part of this Court.
The Court has twice reviewed Keeler’s claims and found them lacking in merit. Furthermore,
the district courts in Kansas and the Tenth Circuit have dealt with Keeler’s numerous,
unsuccessful claims against his former employer with such frequency that the Court has found it
necessary to impose filing restrictions. Keeler has not provided any reason for this Court to
believe that an appeal in this case will be any more favorable to Keeler than his past attempts.
The Court will not facilitate yet another meritless appeal from this plaintiff.
IT IS ACCORDINGLY ORDERED this 14th day of May, 2013, that Plaintiff Keeler’s
Motion for Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 52) is hereby DENIED, and his appeal is
certified as not taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

ERIC F. MELGREN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1).

2

Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(4)(B).

-2-