Anderson v. Internal Revenue Service et al
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGES REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL 7 . Signed by Chief Judge S. Thomas Anderson on 4/6/17. (Anderson, S.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
CANTRAL JAMES ANDERSON,
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
FOR SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL
Before the Court is the United States Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
that the complaint in this matter be dismissed sua sponte. (ECF No. 7.) The Magistrate Judge
submitted her report and Recommendation on February 27, 2017. Objections to the Report and
Recommendation were due within fourteen (14) days of the entry of the Report. To date
Plaintiff has filed no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report.
Having reviewed the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation de novo and the entire record of the
proceedings, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report, and this matter is DISMISSED.
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).1 Rule 24(a) provides that if a party seeks pauper status on
See Callihan v. Schneider, 178 F.3d 800, 803-04 (6th Cir. 1999)
appeal, he must first file a motion in the district court, along with a supporting affidavit.2
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 his
motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the Court of Appeals.3
The good faith standard is an objective one.4 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.5 It
would be inconsistent for a district court to determine that a complaint should be dismissed for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction but has sufficient merit to support an appeal in forma
pauperis.6 The same considerations that lead the court to dismiss this case sua sponte also
compel the conclusion that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
It is CERTIFIED, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 24(a), that any appeal in this matter by
Plaintiff is not taken in good faith. Leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is, therefore,
DENIED. Accordingly, if Plaintiff files a notice of appeal, he must also pay the full appellate
filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and supporting affidavit in the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals within thirty (30) days.7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1).
Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(4)-(5).
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962)
See Williams v. Kullman, 722 F.2d 1048, 1050 n.1 (2d Cir. 1983)
Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 3(a), any notice of appeal should be filed in this court. A motion
to appeal in forma pauperis then should be filed directly in the United States Court of Appeals
S. THOMAS ANDERSON
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Date: April 6, 2017
for the Sixth Circuit. Unless he is specifically instructed to do so, Plaintiff should not send to
this Court copies of documents intended for filing in the Sixth Circuit.
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?