Braden v. Haslam et al

Filing 19

ORDER CERTIFYING THE APPEAL IS NOT TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH, DENYING LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DENYING 18 MOTION FOR REDUCED INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS. Signed by Judge James D. Todd on 1/11/2017. (Todd, James)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
DERRICK RANARD BRADEN,
Plaintiff,
VS.
BILL HASLAM, ET AL.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 16-2346-JDT-tmp

ORDER CERTIFYING THE APPEAL IS NOT TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH,
DENYING LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND
DENYING MOTION FOR REDUCED INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS

The pro se prisoner Plaintiff, Derrick Ranard Braden, filed a notice of appeal from the
dismissal of this case. (ECF No. 10.) However, the Sixth Circuit dismissed the appeal for
want of prosecution after Plaintiff failed to comply with this Court’s order to either pay the
appellate filing fee or submit a properly supported in forma pauperis application and trust
account statement. See Braden v. Haslem, No. 16-6411 (6th Cir. Nov. 2, 2016). On
November 22, 2016, this Court denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis when Plaintiff
belatedly attempted to submit the required financial information. (ECF No. 14.) On
December 16, 2016, Plaintiff filed a copy of this Court’s November 22, 2016, order, on the
first page of which he wrote, inter alia, “No. 16-6411-JDT-tmp” and “Appeal and
Extension.” (Id. at 1.) The Clerk filed the document as a Notice of Appeal from that

November 22nd order denying leave to appeal in forma pauperis. See Braden v. Haslem, No.
16-6818 (6th Cir. Dec. 19, 2016) (appeal docketed).
The Court is not entirely sure that Plaintiff intended to file another separate appeal.
However, to the extent he did intend to file a second appeal, the Court hereby CERTIFIES
that it is frivolous and not taken in good faith and DENIES leave to appeal in forma pauperis.
Also on December 16, 2016, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Motion For Installment
Payments.” (ECF No. 18.) In that motion, Plaintiff refers to himself as the “garnishee” and
asks the Court to reduce his payments with regard to a debt in the amount of $1,810.00. (Id.
at 1.) However, as of the date of this order, Plaintiff owes the Court $400 for the civil filing
fee assessed in this case and $400 for the civil filing fee assessed in case number 16-2358JDT-tmp. Therefore, the $1,810.00 figure listed does not appear to relate to either
proceeding. In any event, the assessment of the filing fees in Plaintiff’s civil cases is not a
garnishment and the collection of those fees from his inmate trust account is not subject to
any state garnishment statutes or procedures. The motion for reduced installment payments
with regard to the civil filing fees is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ James D. Todd
JAMES D. TODD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2