Pittman v. Kenney

Filing 29

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that Petitioner may proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. The clerk of the court shall provide the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals with a copy of this order. Ordered by Senior Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party and as directed) (JSF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
RUSSELL S. PITTMAN,
Petitioner,
v.
SCOTT FRAKES,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:14CV3096

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal (Filing No. 24) on March 23, 2015.
Petitioner appeals from the court’s Memorandum and Order dated February 17, 2015
(Filing No. 20), in which the court dismissed this matter with prejudice.
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:
(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 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: Petitioner may proceed in forma pauperis
on appeal. The clerk of the court shall provide the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals
with a copy of this order.
DATED this 6th day of May, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
Senior 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