Masomi v. Madadi et al

Filing 11

Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: ORDER entered denying 8 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. (PSSA, 4)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

MOSTAFA MASOMI,
Plaintiff,
v.
MEHRANDOKHT MADADI, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.
18-10058-FDS

ORDER
SAYLOR, J.
Plaintiff Mostafa Masomi initiated this action seeking redress for the alleged violation of
his constitutional rights during the course of his divorce proceedings. (Docket No. 1). The action
was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (Docket No. 5) and Masomi filed a notice of
appeal. (Docket No. 7). Now before the Court is Masomi’s motion for leave to appeal in forma
pauperis. (Docket No. 8).
A litigant who wishes to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal must comply with Rule 24
of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 1915. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915; Fed.
R. App. P. 24. Masomi’s motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis will be denied because he
failed to make an adequate showing that he is without sufficient funds to pay the filing fee for
this appeal. He is employed, has equity in his home and his monthly expenses do not exceed his
income.
The motion will also be denied because the appeal is not taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(3) provides that “[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court

certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). “Good faith” for
purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) does not mean “good faith from [the petitioner's] subjective
point of view.” Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444 (1962). Instead, “‘good faith’ in
this context must be judged by an objective standard . . . . [A] defendant’s good faith in this type
of case [is] demonstrated when [the petitioner] seeks appellate review of any issue not
frivolous.” Coppedge, 369 U.S. at 445. An appeal is deemed frivolous when it is based on an
“indisputably meritless legal theory or factual allegations that are clearly baseless.” Forte v.
Sullivan, 935 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1991) (citing Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989)).
Thus, because it is clear that this court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the appeal fails to raise
any legal points that are arguable on the merits.
Accordingly, for the above reasons, the motion (Docket No. 9) for leave to appeal in
forma pauperis is DENIED. This ruling does not preclude Masomi from filing a motion to
proceed in forma pauperis in the Court of Appeals, provided he does so pursuant to Fed. R. App.
P. 24(a)(5).
So Ordered.

/s/ F. Dennis Saylor
F. Dennis Saylor, IV
United States District Judge

Dated: April 11, 2018

2