Guzman v. Cockrell et al
Filing
38
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER denying 33 MOTION for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis filed by Vicente Guzman. Signed by Magistrate Judge Judith K. Guthrie on 6/20/11. (ljw, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUFKIN DIVISION
VICENTE GUZMAN, #1541295
§
VS.
§
JANIE COCKRELL, ET AL.
§
CIVIL ACTION NO.9:10cv111
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON
APPELLANT’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL
Came on for consideration, Appellant Vicente Guzman’s motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis on appeal (docket entry #33) from the partial dismissal of five defendants from his
civil rights lawsuit. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) states that leave to proceed on appeal in forma
pauperis shall be denied if the district court determines that the appeal is not taken in “good faith”
(i.e., if the appeal fails to present a nonfrivolous issue). Coppedge v. U.S., 369 U.S. 438, 445, 82 S.
Ct. 917, 8 L. Ed. 2d 21 (1962). An action is frivolous where there is no arguable legal or factual
basis for the claim. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 104 L. Ed. 2d 338
(1989). Similarly, under Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3)(A), the Appellant is ineligible for in forma
pauperis status if the Court certifies that the appeal is not taken in “good faith.” If the district court
finds no “legal points arguable on the merits,” then an appeal is not taken in “good faith.” Howard
v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983), reh’g denied, 719 F.2d 787 5th Cir. 1983); see also Wai
Leung Chu v. United States, 353 Fed. Appx. 952, 953 (5th Cir. 2009) (per curiam); Groden v. Kizzia,
354 Fed. Appx. 36, 36 (5th Cir. 2009) (per curiam); Walton v. Valdez, 340 Fed. Appx. 954, 955 (5th
Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
For reasons stated in the Memorandum Opinion and Order of Partial Dismissal (docket entry
#22), the Court certifies that the Appellant’s appeal is not taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3)(A); Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 n.21 (5th Cir. 1997)
(To comply with Rule 24 and to inform the Court of Appeals of the reasons for its certification, a
1
district court may incorporate by reference its order dismissing an appellant’s claims).
In addition to this certification, the Court notes that the Appellant’s appeal of the partial
dismissal is procedurally improper. The final judgment rule states that “a party is entitled to a single
appeal, to be deferred until final judgment has been entered.” Digital Equipment Corp. v. Desktop
Direct, Inc., 511 U.S. 863, 868, 114 S. Ct. 1992, 128 L. Ed. 2d 842 (1994); see also Henry v. Lake
Charles American Press, LLC, 566 F.3d 164, 171 (5th Cir.2009) (noting that “as a general rule,
parties must litigate all issues in the trial court before appealing any one issue”). Therefore,
“[a]ppeal is thereby precluded from any decision which is tentative, informal or incomplete, as well
as from any fully consummated decisions, where they are but steps towards final judgment in which
they will merge.” Henry, 566 F.3d at 171 (quoting P.R. Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy,
Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 142, 113 S. Ct. 684, 121 L. Ed. 2d 605 (1993)). Here, there has been no final
judgment entered, only a partial dismissal involving some, but not all, of the defendants.
Nonetheless, 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) provides for interlocutory appeals of trial court decisions
when such decisions (1) involve a controlling question of law (2) as to which there is substantial
ground for difference of opinion and (3) an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance
the ultimate termination of the litigation. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The Fifth Circuit has previously
reasoned that § 1292(b) appeals are appropriate under only “exceptional” circumstances.
Clark-Dietz and Associates-Engineers v. Basica Constr. Co., 702 F.2d 67, 69 (5th Cir.1983).
However, in other cases, the Fifth Circuit has employed a more flexible approach to Section 1292(b)
appeals. See Hadjipateras v. Pacifica, S.A., 290 F.2d 697, 702-03 (5th Cir.1961) (finding that §1292
gave the appellate machinery “a considerable amount of flexibility” so that “disadvantages of
piecemeal and final judgment appeals might both be avoided”). Regardless of which approach is
adopted, the decision to permit interlocutory appeal is firmly within the district court's discretion.
Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 405 n.9, 124 S. Ct. 2576, 159 L. Ed.
2d 459 (2004) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting); In re Gomez, 404 Fed. App. 850, 853 (5th Cir. 2010)
(district court must certify in writing that the order involves a controlling question of law as to which
2
there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may
materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation in order for a Court of Appeals to
exercise its own discretion to hear an interlocutory appeal) (internal quotations and citations
omitted).
Here, Appellant has not moved in the District Court for leave to file an interlocutory appeal
to the Fifth Circuit, nor has Appellant sought in this Court to fulfill the conditions necessary to move
in the Fifth Circuit for leave to appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 5(a)(3). Furthermore, the partial
dismissal of only five defendants is only one piece in the ultimate outcome of this entire litigation.
There is no advantage to permitting a piecemeal appeal of the dismissal at this time. Therefore, an
interlocutory appeal would be inappropriate. For this additional reason, Appellant’s notice of appeal
is not taken in good faith.
It is accordingly
ORDERED that the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (docket entry
#33) is DENIED.
Although this Court has certified that the appeal is not taken in good faith under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(3) and Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3)(A), the Appellant may challenge this finding pursuant to
Baugh v. Taylor, by filing a separate motion to proceed IFP on appeal with the Clerk of Court, U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, within 30 days of this order. Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202. The
cost to file a motion to proceed on appeal with the Fifth Circuit is calculated below, and if the
Appellant moves to proceed on appeal IFP, the prison authorities will be directed to collect the fees
as calculated in this order.
Vicente Guzman, #1541295, did not file a recent prisoner trust account data sheet with his
motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Using the data sheet he provided with his motion
to proceed in forma pauperis in the District Court, he is assessed an initial partial fee of $2.68. The
agency having custody of the prisoner shall collect this amount from the trust fund account or
institutional equivalent, when funds are available, and forward it to the clerk of the district court.
3
Thereafter, the Appellant shall pay $452.32, the balance of the filing fees, in periodic
installments. The Appellant is required to make payments of 20% of the preceding month’s income
credited to the appellant’s prison account until appellant has paid the total filing fee of $455.00. The
agency having custody of the prisoner shall collect this amount from the trust fund account or
institutional equivalent, when funds are available and when permitted by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2),
and forward it to the clerk of the district court.
If the Appellant moves to proceed on appeal IFP, the clerk shall mail a copy of this order to
the inmate accounting office or other person(s) or entity with responsibility for collecting and
remitting to the district court interim filing payments on behalf of prisoners, as designated by the
facility in which the prisoner is currently or subsequently confined.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 20 day of June, 2011.
____________________________
JUDITH K. GUTHRIE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
4
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?