Jones v. Shelby County Sheriff Department et al

Filing 8

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS, ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR DISMISSAL, CERTIFYING AN APPEAL WOULD NOT BE TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH AND DENYING LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS 6 . Signed by Judge James D. Todd on 2/3/16. (Todd, James)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
DAVID TYRON JONES,
Plaintiff,
VS.
SHELBY COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT, ET AL.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 15-2217-JDT-cgc

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS,
ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR DISMISSAL,
CERTIFYING AN APPEAL WOULD NOT BE TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH
AND DENYING LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Plaintiff David Tyron Jones, who is currently a resident of Bolivar, Tennessee, filed
a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on March 30, 2015, accompanied by a
motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1 & 2.) What appears to be an amendment
to the complaint was filed on May 6, 2015. (ECF No. 4.) On December 29, 2015, U.S.
Magistrate Judge Charmiane G. Claxton granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and
issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) in which she recommended dismissing the
case sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff filed a timely
objection to the R&R on January 21, 2016. (ECF No. 7.)
Plaintiff’s complaint in this case is titled, “Afican [sic] American Dieing [sic] Lawsuit
Scam,” and the only allegation is “Gang control terrism [sic] thunderdorm [sic] canabalism

[sic] fights in our county jails and government mental hospitals causeing [sic] heart atacks
[sic] sucide [sic] deaths and lots of missing peoples.” (ECF No. 1 at 1.) The amendment to
the complaint contains the same allegations and adds that “the state hospital is trying to kill
me for Shelby County goverment [sic] Miss Lucy Mills and Doctor David Crawford. I fear
for my life.” (ECF No. 4 at 1.)
In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Claxton determined that Plaintiff’s allegations were
incomprehensible and did not assert any colorable claim against any defendant under any
legal theory. Plaintiff’s objection to the R&R states:
Fileing [sic] appeal in the United States District Court for the Western District
of Tennessee Western Division[.] Request for damages or other relief[.] State
claim on which relief may be granted[.] Sueing [sic] for 15 million dollar[.]
That I have to die in Jail and at the Mental Hospital Institute and causeing [sic]
me to suffer from P.D.S. disorder that cause me to have to take medication for
the rest of my life and takeing [sic] me off of my trial in Crimial [sic] Court
Div 3 were [sic] I couldn’t plead guilty to my charge. I can pass a lie detecter
[sic] test.
(ECF No. 7 at 1.) This objection is also incoherent and is DENIED.
The Court finds no error in Magistrate Judge Claxton’s conclusion that Plaintiff’s
complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted and hereby ADOPTS the
R&R. This case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
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 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a). See Callihan v.

2

Schneider, 178 F.3d 800, 803-04 (6th Cir. 1999). Rule 24(a) provides that if a party seeks
pauper status on appeal, he must first file a motion in the district court, along with a
supporting affidavit. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1). However, Rule 24(a) also provides that if the
district court certifies that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, or otherwise denies
leave to appeal in forma pauperis, the party must 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. 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 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a), that any
appeal in this matter by Plaintiff is not taken in good faith. Leave to appeal in forma
pauperis is, therefore, DENIED. Accordingly, if Plaintiff files a notice of appeal, he must
also pay the full $505 appellate filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and
supporting affidavit in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Clerk is directed to prepare a judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ James D. Todd
JAMES D. TODD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3