Raimondo v. Armada, Village of et al

Filing 11

ORDER Denying Motion to Waive (SIC) Appeal filing fees due to financial hardship 9 (Application to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs) filed by Joseph Raimondo. Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh (MBea)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOSEPH RAIMONDO,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 13-CV-14773
HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

vs.
VILLAGE OF ARMADA, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO WAVE (SIC) APPEAL
FILING FEES DUE TO FINANCIAL HARDSHIP (DOC. # 9)
Plaintiff Joseph Raimondo filed a pro se complaint against the Village of Armada
and numerous additional individuals and entities. In December 2013, the court entered
an order that required Mr. Raimondo to file an amended complaint or face dismissal of
the action. Because the rambling and train of thought document filed by Mr. Raimondo
responding to that order did not come close to satisfying the court’s order, the court
dismissed the case.
Mr. Raimondo has filed both a Notice of Appeal, without any specification of the
issues he intends to present on appeal, and a motion to waive the appellate filing fee,
explaining that a temporary financial set back made it impossible to timely pay the fee.
Mr. Raimondo has not complied with the requirements of the applicable appellate
rule. That Rule of Appellate Procedure provides that
[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:
-1-

(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.
Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1).
The rule later provides that a “party may file a motion to proceed on appeal in
forma pauperis in the court of appeals within 30 days after service of the notice” of the
district court’s denial of his motion. Should Mr. Raimondo decide to proceed with filing
such a motion with the Sixth Circuit, he has 30 days from the date of service of this
order, and he “must include a copy of the affidavit filed in the district court and the
district court’s statement of reasons for its action. If no affidavit was filed in the district
court, the party must include the affidavit prescribed by Rule 24(a)(1).” Fed. R. App. P.
24(a)(5).
Accordingly, the motion to waive the appellate filing fee is hereby DENIED. If Mr.
Raimondo requests a waiver of the fee by the Sixth Circuit, he must comply with Fed. R.
App. P. 24 as set forth above.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 2, 2014
s/George Caram Steeh
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
April 2, 2014, by electronic and/or ordinary mail and also on
Joseph Raimondo, P.O. Box 330, Armada, MI 48005.
s/Barbara Radke
Deputy Clerk

-2-