Owenby v. Hardeman County Correctional Facility

Filing 7

ORDER DIRECTING ENTRY OF JUDGMENT, CERTIFYING AN APPEAL WOULD NOT BE TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH AND NOTIFYING PLAINTIFF OF APPELLATE FILING FEE. Signed by Judge James D. Todd on 2/26/15. (Todd, James)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN DIVISION
CLAYTON CARROLL OWENBY, JR.,
Plaintiff,
VS.
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF
AMERICA, ET AL.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 14-1242-JDT-egb

ORDER DIRECTING ENTRY OF JUDGMENT,
CERTIFYING AN APPEAL WOULD NOT BE TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH AND
NOTIFYING PLAINTIFF OF APPELLATE FILING FEE

On September 18, 2014, Plaintiff Clayton Carroll Owenby, Jr., Tennessee Department of
Correction prisoner number 124647, an inmate at the Hardeman County Correctional Facility
(“HCCF”) in Whiteville, Tennessee, filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF
No. 1.) After Plaintiff filed an appropriate application, the Court granted leave to proceed in forma
pauperis and assessed the civil filing fee pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)-(b). (ECF Nos. 4 & 5.) On January 15, 2015, the Court dismissed the complaint for
failure to state a claim but granted leave to file an amended complaint addressing the treatment
Plaintiff received at the HCCF for his medical conditions. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff was instructed that
any amended complaint must be filed within twenty-eight days and that, should he fail to file an
amended complaint within the time specified, the Court would assess a “strike” pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g) and enter judgment. (Id. at 10-11).

Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, and the time within which to do so has expired.
Therefore, judgment will be entered in accordance with the January 15, 2015, order of dismissal.
The Court must also consider whether Plaintiff should be allowed to appeal this decision in
forma pauperis, should he seek to do so. Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, a
non-prisoner desiring to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis must obtain pauper status under Fed.
R. App. P. 24(a). See Callihan v. Schneider, 178 F.3d 800, 803-04 (6th Cir. 1999). Rule 24(a)(3)
provides that if a party was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in the district court, he may also
proceed on appeal in forma pauperis without further authorization unless the district court “certifies
that the appeal is not taken in good faith or finds that the party is not otherwise entitled to proceed
in forma pauperis.” If the district court denies pauper status, the party may file a motion to proceed
in forma pauperis in the Court of Appeals. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(4)-(5).
The good faith standard is an objective one. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445
(1962). The test for whether an appeal is taken in good faith is whether the litigant seeks appellate
review of any issue that is not frivolous. Id. It would be inconsistent for a district court to determine
that a complaint should be dismissed prior to service on the defendants, but has sufficient merit to
support an appeal in forma pauperis. See Williams v. Kullman, 722 F.2d 1048, 1050 n.1 (2d Cir.
1983). The same considerations that lead the Court to dismiss this case for failure to state a claim
also compel the conclusion that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
It is CERTIFIED, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal in this matter by
Plaintiff is not taken in good faith.
The Court must also address the assessment of the $505 appellate filing fee if Plaintiff
nevertheless appeals the dismissal of this case. A certification that an appeal is not taken in good

2

faith does not affect an indigent prisoner plaintiff’s ability to take advantage of the installment
procedures contained in § 1915(b). See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 610-11 (6th Cir.
1997), partially overruled on other grounds by LaFountain v. Harry, 716 F.3d 944, 951 (6th Cir.
2013). McGore sets out specific procedures for implementing the PLRA, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)-(b).
Therefore, the Plaintiff is instructed that if he wishes to take advantage of the installment procedures
for paying the appellate filing fee, he must comply with the procedures set out in McGore and
§ 1915(a)(2) by filing an updated in forma pauperis affidavit and a current, certified copy of his
inmate trust account for the six months immediately preceding the filing of the notice of appeal.
For analysis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) of future filings, if any, by Plaintiff, this is the first
dismissal of one of his cases as frivolous or for failure to state a claim. This “strike” shall take effect
when judgment is entered. Coleman v. Tollefson, 733 F.3d 175, 177-78 (6th Cir. 2013), cert.
granted, 135 S. Ct. 43 (2014) (Nos. 13-1333, 13A985).
The Clerk is directed to prepare a judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ James D. Todd
JAMES D. TODD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3