Jamison v. Ates

Filing 22

ORDER AND REASONS denying 21 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. Signed by Chief Judge Sarah S. Vance on 4/23/13. (jjs, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DEBBIE JAMISON

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 12-2301

J. ROBERT ATES

SECTION: R

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is petitioner Debbie Jamison's motion to
proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.1 Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 24(a) governs such motions and provides:
(1) Motion in the District Court. Except as stated in Rule
24(a)(3), a party to a district-court action who desires to
appeal in forma pauperis must file a motion in the district
court. The party must attach an affidavit that:
(A) shows in the detail prescribed by Form 4 of the
Appendix of Forms the party's inability to pay or to give
security for fees and costs;
(B) claims an entitlement to redress; and
(C) states the issues that the party intends to present on
appeal.
Rule 24(a)(3) provides an exception to the requirements of Rule
24(a)(1):
(3) Prior Approval. A party who was permitted to proceed in
forma pauperis in the district-court action, or who was
determined to be financially unable to obtain an adequate
defense in a criminal case, may proceed on appeal in forma
pauperis without further authorization, unless:
(A) the district court-before or after the notice of appeal
is filed-certifies that the appeal is not taken in good
faith or finds that the party is not otherwise entitled to
proceed in forma pauperis and states in writing its reasons
1

R. Doc. 21.

for the certification or finding; or
(B) a statute provides otherwise.
Plaintiff was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in her
action before this Court.2

Nevertheless, because the Court finds

that plaintiff's appeal is not in good faith, the Court denies
plaintiff's motion.
In her complaint, plaintiff asserted that the Court had
jurisdiction under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1, and
she sought to challenge a decision made through a process
established by a state court settlement agreement. The Court held
that the settlement agreement clearly provided for judicial
recourse to the presiding state court, not a federal court, and
that, in any event, the FAA is not an independent grant of
federal jurisdiction.3 The Court thus dismissed plaintiff's
claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.4
Plaintiff then filed a motion to reconsider in which she did
not address the issue of subject matter jurisdiction.5 The Court
accordingly denied the motion to reconsider.6 Plaintiff filed a

2

R. Doc. 3.

3

Id.

4

R. Doc. 12.

5

R. Doc. 14.

6

R. Doc. 19.
2

notice of appeal and this motion to proceed in forma pauperis,
neither of which identifies the issues she wishes to raise on
appeal.7 Because the Court has held that it lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims and plaintiff has failed to
address the Court's jurisdiction in either her opposition to
defendant's motion to dismiss or her motion to reconsider, the
Court finds that plaintiff's appeal is frivolous. See, e.g.,
Hamilton v. Attorney General State of Louisiana, No. 07-3600,
2008 WL 2651430, at *1 (E.D. La. July 7, 2008).
For the foregoing reasons, the Court certifies that
plaintiff's appeal is not in good faith and DENIES her motion to
proceed in forma pauperis. Under Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 24(a)(5), plaintiff may challenge the Court's
certification by filing a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on
appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, within
30 days of this order.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 23rdday of April, 2013.
__

_________________________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7

R. Docs. 20,21.
3