Evans, Jr. v. Scioto County Common Pleas Court and Judge's of General, Domestic & Probate Divisions et al
Filing
15
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that the Court both certify that 12 NOTICE OF APPEAL is not taken in good faith and deny 11 MOTION for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. Objections to R&R due within fourteen (14) days. Signed by Magistrate Judge Terence P. Kemp on 6/23/2015. (agm)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
William H. Evans, Jr.,
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
Scioto County Common Pleas
Court and Judge’s of General,
Domestic & Probate Divisions,
et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 2:15-cv-769
JUDGE GEORGE C. SMITH
Magistrate Judge Kemp
:
:
:
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, William H. Evans, Jr., a state prisoner who
resides at the Ross Correctional Institution, submitted his
complaint in this case on March 2, 2015.
His complaint was
accompanied by a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
However, as the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit has recognized, Mr. Evans has had three or more cases or
appeals dismissed in the past as frivolous or for failure to
state a claim on which relief can be granted.
See Evans v. Owen,
No. 09-3078 (6th Cir. June 1, 2009).
Under that portion of the Prison Litigation Reform Act
codified at 28 U.S.C. §1915(g), the so-called "three strikes"
rule, a prisoner may not bring a suit in forma pauperis if that
prisoner "has, on 3 or more occasions, while incarcerated or
detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court
of the United States that was dismissed on the ground that it is
frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of
serious physical injury."
Thus, Mr. Evans is not entitled to
proceed in forma pauperis and to pay either the District Court or
appellate filing fee in installments unless he can demonstrate
that he meets the "imminent danger" requirement of §1915(g).
Otherwise, he must pay the entire filing fee for filing a case or
filing an appeal.
In a prior Report and Recommendation (Doc. 7), the Court
found that Mr. Evans was required to pay the full filing fee for
this case.
He objected, but that recommendation was upheld by
Judge Smith.
(Doc. 10).
Mr. Evans then filed a motion for leave
to appeal in forma pauperis and a notice of appeal.
Judge Smith’s April 20, 2015 order is not a final appealable
order.
Generally speaking, the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction
to consider appeals from orders of the District Courts which are
“final decisions,” see 28 U.S.C. §1291, which grant or refuse to
grant injunctions, see 28 U.S.C. §1292(a), or which are
collateral orders determining claims which are separable from and
collateral to the merits of the case, see Cohen v. Beneficial
Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949).
question is none of these things.
The order in
Consequently, the notice of
appeal is premature and without effect.
That being the case, it
is recommended that the Court both certify that the appeal is not
taken in good faith, which is one basis on which to deny the
motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis, and deny the motion
because, as a prisoner subject to the “three strikes” rule, Mr.
Evans is not entitled to proceed on appeal without paying the
filing fee.
Procedure on Objections
If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation,
that party may, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this
Report, file and serve on all parties written objections to
those specific proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made, together with supporting authority for the
objection(s).
A judge of this Court shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specified
-2-
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is
made.
Upon proper objections, a judge of this Court may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
or recommendations made herein, may receive further evidence
or may recommit this matter to the magistrate judge with
instructions.
28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1).
The parties are specifically advised that failure to
object to the Report and Recommendation will result in a
waiver of the right to have the district judge review the
Report and Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a
waiver of the right to appeal the decision of the District
Court adopting the Report and Recommendation.
See Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d
947 (6th Cir. 1981).
/s/ Terence P. Kemp
United States Magistrate Judge
-3-
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?