Oyer v. City of Kansas City Missouri et al
ORDER (1) DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO CONTINUE DEADLINE TO APPEAL, AND (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS Signed on 3/9/17 by District Judge Ortrie D. Smith. (Order mailed to John Oyer.) (Matthes Mitra, Renea)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
CITY OF KANSAS CITY,
MISSOURI, et al.,
Case No. 16-00982-CV-W-ODS
ORDER (1) DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONTINUE DEADLINE
TO APPEAL, AND (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IN
Pending are two motions: (1) Plaintiff’s motion to continue deadline to appeal
(Doc. #25), and (2) Plaintiff’s motion to appeal in forma pauperis (Doc. #24).
In his motion to continue deadline to appeal, Plaintiff states he filed writs of
mandamus in the Eighth Circuit, and requests this Court delay the appeal deadline so
issues may be resolved in the Eighth Circuit. Doc. #25. Plaintiff filed his appeal within
thirty days after the Court’s denial of his motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the
District Court. Plaintiff’s appeal was timely. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A).
Accordingly, the Court denies as moot Plaintiff’s motion to continue deadline to appeal.
Plaintiff also requests to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal to challenge this
Court’s denial of his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Id. This Court initially denied
Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis because Plaintiff did not file an Affidavit
of Financial Status as required by Local Rule 83.7(a), and the Court determined it
lacked jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims. Doc. #4. Plaintiff then filed a multitude of
motions to reconsider, all of which were denied. Docs. #6, 12, 15.
After receiving permission to file an Amended Complaint, Plaintiff filed an
Amended Complaint and Affidavit of Financial Status. Docs. #19, 20. The Court noted
Plaintiff’s affidavit was not notarized as required. Doc. #21, at 2 n.1. After determining
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was frivolous, the Court again denied Plaintiff’s request
to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. #21.
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24 sets forth the requirements for the
District Court’s consideration of a motion to appeal in forma pauperis. In this instance,
Plaintiff did not submit detailed financial status information as required by Rule
24(a)(1)(A). Plaintiff did “incorporate his in forma pauperis on file as it entered herin
[sic] in its entirety.” Doc. #24. However, the Court notes again Plaintiff’s financial
affidavit was not notarized, and the Affidavit set out in the Rules of Appellate Procedure
requires more detailed financial and personal information than Plaintiff has previously
provided. Given Plaintiff’s failure to properly submit required forms indicating his
financial status, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to appeal in forma pauperis.
The Court also denies Plaintiff’s motion to appeal in forma pauperis because
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is frivolous. As explained in the Court’s second denial of
Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint does not
set forth a conceivable basis upon which to find defendants liable, names entities that
cannot be sued, and lacks an arguable basis in law and fact. Doc. #21, at 2-3.
Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to appeal in forma pauperis.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Ortrie D. Smith
ORTRIE D. SMITH, SENIOR JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DATE: March 9, 2017
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?