Swift v. Schmaderer et al

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that the plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis regarding Notice of Appeal to USCA 14 . Ordered by Judge John M. Gerrard. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(ADB)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
ARNETTA SWIFT,
Plaintiff,
v.
KYLER, Omaha Police Officer, and
JOHN DOE, Unknown, Cohort of
Omaha Police,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:14CV259

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on its own motion. Plaintiff filed a Notice of
Appeal (Filing No. 14) on March 30, 2015. Plaintiff appeals from the court’s
Memorandum and Order dated March 18, 2015 (Filing No. 12), in which the court
dismissed this matter without 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 IFP in the district court, she
may now proceed on appeal in forma pauperis without further authorization.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff may proceed on appeal in forma pauperis.

2.
The clerk of the court shall provide the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals
with a copy of this order.
DATED this 31st day of March, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
s/ John M. Gerrard
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