Woolman v. Ward of Lancaster County et al

Filing 23

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff's 22 MOTION for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis is granted. Plaintiff's two miscellaneous motions filed on October 22, 2013, 17 MOTION to Compel and MOTION 18 are denied because they are frivolous and nonsensical. The Clerk of the court shall provide the Court of Appeals with a copy of this Memorandum and Order. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy e-mailed to pro se party and Court of Appeals as directed)(MKR)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
MICHAEL B. WOOLMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
WARD OF LANCASTER
COUNTY, MICHAEL DOWD,
STATE FARM, and JUDY M.
WOOLMAN, as Guardianship &
Conservatorship,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:13CV3036

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Appeal in
Forma Pauperis, and two miscellaneous motions. (Filing Nos. 17, 18, and 22.) On
October 11, 2013, the court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims without prejudice and entered
judgment against him. (Filing Nos. 14 and 15.) On October 22, 2013, Plaintiff filed
a Notice of Appeal of the court’s Judgment. (Filing No. 21.) Plaintiff is not a
prisoner and has previously been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this
matter. (Filing No. 9.)
As set forth in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3):
(a) Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis ....
(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 . . . 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 for the certification or finding . . .

The court finds that because Plaintiff proceeded in forma pauperis in the
district court, he may now “proceed on appeal in forma pauperis without further
authorization.”
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Appeal in Forma Pauperis (Filing No. 22)
is granted.
2.
Plaintiff’s two miscellaneous motions filed on October 22, 2013 (Filing
Nos. 17 and 18), are denied because they are frivolous and nonsensical.
3.
The Clerk of the court shall provide the Court of Appeals with a copy of
this Memorandum and Order.
DATED this 28th day of October, 2013.
BY THE COURT:

s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
United States District Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S. District Court for the District
of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they
provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The
court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases
to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.

2