Johnson v. Moon

Filing 59

ORDER denying 57 Plaintiff's Motions Requesting Contempt Sanctions, because Defendant Moon was not required to answer Plaintiff's complaint; denying 58 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge David L. Russell on 01/17/2023. (km)

Case 5:21-cv-00401-R Document 59 Filed 01/17/23 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ANTIONE DIRAY JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANDY MOON,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-21-401-R

ORDER
Before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motions Requesting Contempt Sanctions (Doc. No.
57) and Leave to Proceed on Appeal in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 58). Plaintiff has
repeatedly alleged that Defendant Moon was required to answer his complaint despite this
Court (See Doc. Nos. 41, 44, 47, 49, 51, 56) and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals (Doc.
No. 31, at 4) holding otherwise. Accordingly, his Motion Requesting Contempt Sanctions
(Doc. No. 57) is DENIED because Defendant Moon was not required to answer Plaintiff’s
complaint.
Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 58),
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) provides that “[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if
the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” Good faith in this
context is demonstrated when an appeal is based on a “reasoned, nonfrivolous argument
on the law and facts in support of the issues raised on appeal.” DeBardeleben v. Quinlan,
937 F.2d 502, 505 (10th Cir. 1991); see also Caravalho v. Pugh, 177 F.3d 1177, 1179 (10th
Cir. 1999). An appeal is not made in good faith if the issues presented therein are frivolous

Case 5:21-cv-00401-R Document 59 Filed 01/17/23 Page 2 of 2

in that they involve “inarguable legal conclusion[s].” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,
325 (1989).
While it is not entirely clear as to what ruling Plaintiff seeks to appeal, the Court
interprets his application as an attempt to presumptively seek leave to appeal should the
Court deny his Motion Requesting Contempt Sanctions (Doc. No. 57). Having denied
Plaintiff’s Motion, the Court finds—and certifies—that this appeal is not made in good
faith. Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s request for leave to appeal in
forma pauperis (Doc. No. 58). This case is closed and has been since December 6, 2021.
(See Doc. No. 20). The Court does not anticipate any additional filings in this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 17th day of January 2023.

2