Amrhein et al v. Riechert et al
ORDER denying 64 , 65 Motions for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal. (Ordered by Senior Judge A. Joe Fish on 5/3/2013) (axm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DARLENE C. AMRHEIN, ET AL.,
JERRY RIECHERT, ET AL.,
CIVIL ACTION NO.
ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO PROCEED
IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL
(For pro se non-PLRA appeals)
Considering the record in this case and the recommendation of the magistrate
judge, the court hereby finds and orders:
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal
is GRANTED. 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
The motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on
appeal (docket entries 64 and 65) are DENIED for the
The plaintiff is not a pauper.
The plaintiff has not complied with the
requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) or
The plaintiff is barred by “three strikes” from
proceeding in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and FED.
R. APP. P. 24(a)(3), the court certifies that the
appeal is not taken in good faith. In support
of this finding, the court adopts and
incorporates by reference the district court’s
order filed on September 13, 2010, which
accepted the findings, conclusions and
recommendation of the magistrate judge filed
on February 17, 2010. See Baugh v. Taylor,
117 F.3d 197, 202 n.21 (5th Cir. 1997).
Based on the above order, this court finds
that the appeal presents no legal points of
arguable merit and is therefore frivolous.
Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.
Although this appeal is certified as not taken in good
faith under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and FED. R. APP. P.
24(a)(3), the plaintiff may challenge this finding by
filing a separate motion to proceed in forma pauperis
on appeal with the Clerk of Court, U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, within 30 days of this
May 3, 2013.
A. JOE FISH
Senior United States District Judge
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?