Franklin v. Glenwood Behavior Hospital et al

Filing 13

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 12 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT Plaintiff's motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (doc. 12 ) be DENIED. Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(4), Def endant may file, within 30 days after service of the District Court's Order adopting this Report and Recommendation, a motion with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals for leave to proceed as a pauper on appeal. Defendant's motion must includ e a copy of the affidavit filed in the District Court and this Court's statement as to the reasons for denying pauper status on appeal. Defendant is notified that if she does not file a motion within 30 days of receiving notice of the District Court's decision as required by Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5) or fails to pay the required filing fee of $455.00 within this same time period, the appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution. Once dismissed for want of prosecution, the appe al will not be reinstated, even if the filing fee or motion for pauper status is subsequently tendered, unless Defendant can demonstrate that she did not receive notice of the District Court's decision within the time period prescribed for by Fe d. R. App. P. 24(a)(5). Objections to R&R due by 3/20/2025. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman on 3/6/2025. (km)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
QUEEN CHARLOTTE FRANKLIN,
Plaintiff,

Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-00044

vs.

Barrett, J.
Bowman, M.J.

GLENWOOD BEHAVIOR HOSPITAL, et al.,
Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for leave to appeal in forma
pauperis (doc. 12).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), an appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis
if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith. See also Fed. R. App.
P. 24(a). Good faith in this context is demonstrated when the party seeks appellate
review of an issue that is not frivolous. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438,
445 (1962). An appeal is frivolous where the appeal lacks an arguable basis either in
law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
On February 13, 2025, the Court adopted the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge recommending that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed with prejudice
both for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C.
§§1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1)) (docs. 8, 9). The Court’s Order also certified that
an appeal of the order would not be taken in good faith, and denied Plaintiff leave to

1

appeal in forma pauperis.

Id. In light of these factors, the undersigned herein

RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (doc. 12) be
DENIED.
Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(4), Defendant may file, within thirty (30) days
after service of the District Court’s Order adopting this Report and Recommendation, a
motion with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals for leave to proceed as a pauper on appeal.
Callihan v. Schneider, 178 F.3d 800, 803 (6th Cir. 1999), overruling in part Floyd v. United
States Postal Service, 105 F.3d 274 (6th Cir. 1997). Defendant’s motion must include a
copy of the affidavit filed in the District Court and this Court’s statement as to the reasons
for denying pauper status on appeal. Id.; see Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5).
Defendant is notified that if she does not file a motion within thirty (30) days of
receiving notice of the District Court’s decision as required by Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5) or
fails to pay the required filing fee of $455.00 within this same time period, the appeal will
be dismissed for want of prosecution. Callihan, 178 F.3d at 804. Once dismissed for
want of prosecution, the appeal will not be reinstated, even if the filing fee or motion for
pauper status is subsequently tendered, unless Defendant can demonstrate that she did
not receive notice of the District Court’s decision within the time period prescribed for by
Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5). Id.
s/Stephanie K. Bowman ____
Stephanie K. Bowman
United States Magistrate Judge

2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
QUEEN CHARLOTTE FRANKLIN,
Plaintiff,

Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-00044

vs.

Barrett, J.
Bowman, M.J.

GLENWOOD BEHAVIOR HOSPITAL, et al.,
Defendants.
NOTICE
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written
objections to this Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of
the filing date of this R&R. That period may be extended further by the Court on timely
motion by either side for an extension of time. All objections shall specify the portion(s)
of the R&R objected to, and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support
of the objections. A party shall respond to an opponent’s objections within FOURTEEN
(14) DAYS after being served with a copy of those objections. Failure to make objections
in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

3