Shipp et al v. Corrections Corporation of America et al
Filing
21
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 10/10/18. (skc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN DIVISION
TADARYL SHIPP,
Plaintiff,
VS.
CORECIVIC, ET AL.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 16-2891-JDT-cgc
ORDER DIRECTING ENTRY OF JUDGMENT,
CERTIFYING AN APPEAL WOULD NOT BE TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH
AND NOTIFYING PLAINTIFF OF APPELLATE FILING FEE
On November 8, 2016, the pro se Plaintiff, Tadaryl Shipp, who is incarcerated at
the Hardeman County Correctional Facility in Whiteville, Tennessee, filed a complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) The Court subsequently granted Plaintiff’s
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and assessed the civil filing fee pursuant to
the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)-(b). (ECF No. 19.)
On September 6, 2018, the Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim
and granted leave to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 20.) The order also notified
Plaintiff that if he failed to file an amended complaint within the specified time period, the
Court would assess a ‘strike’ pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and enter judgment. (Id. at
9.) However, Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint, and the time within which
to do so has expired.
Therefore, judgment will be entered in accordance with the
September 6, 2018, order dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the Court must also consider whether an appeal
by Plaintiff in this case would be taken in good faith. 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.
Therefore, it is CERTIFIED, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal in this
matter by Plaintiff would not be 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 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, 716 F.3d at 951. 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
2
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, 135 S. Ct. 1759,
1763-64 (2015).
The Clerk is directed to prepare a judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ James D. Todd
JAMES D. TODD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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?