In re: Ahmed Olasunkanmi Salau, Debtor

Filing 28

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying appellant's 23 MOTION for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis and his request for all other relief in this motion ( 23 MOTION to Authorize E-Filing and Electronic Noticing). Appellant may refile his motion in the Court of Appeals. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 2/25/2016. (cc: counsel of record, appellant, pro se and any unrepresented party) (arb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BLUEFIELD
In re. Ahmed Olasunkanmi Salau,
Debtor/Appellant.
Civil Action Nos. 1:15-11078
1:15-11080
1:15-11727
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the court are appellant’s applications to
proceed on appeal in forma pauperis.

(Doc. Nos. 21, 23, 21).

For the reasons that follow, appellant’s applications and his
request for all other relief in these applications are DENIED.
Appellant has not complied with Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 24.

Pursuant to Rule 24(a)(1), a party seeking leave

to appeal in forma pauperis must file a motion in the district
court accompanied by an affidavit that:
(A)

(B)
(C)

shows in the detail prescribed by Form 4 of the
Appendix of Forms the party’s inability to pay or to
give security for fees and costs;
claims an entitlement to redress; and
states the issues that the party intends to present on
appeal.

Appellant has not complied with any of these three requirements.
It is unclear whether appellant received in forma pauperis
status in the bankruptcy court action and whether that status

transferred to the district court action, as well.1

Rule

24(a)(3)(A) permits a party that has proceeded in forma pauperis
“in the district-court action” to retain that status on appeal
without further authorization unless the appeal is not taken in
good faith.

The Rule does not clarify whether “in the district-

court” includes those actions initiated in bankruptcy court.
If appellant received and retained in forma pauperis
status, the court must deny his application because his appeal
is not taken in good faith.

An appellant presents an appeal in

good faith when he or she seeks appellate review of any issue
that is not frivolous.
438, 445 (1962).

See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S.

Two of appellant’s three appeals to the

district court sought review of interlocutory orders:

both

sought review of the bankruptcy judge’s denial of appellant’s
motion to appear telephonically, as well as review of:

(1) the

Trustee’s abandonment of unmeritorious lawsuits included in

1

In appellant’s initial bankruptcy case, the bankruptcy
court waived the Chapter 7 filing fee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1930(f)(1), but appellant neither requested nor received formal
in forma pauperis status in his appeal to the district court.
However, courts are split on the question of whether a
bankruptcy court can grant in forma pauperis status. See In re
Minh Vu Hoang, Civil Action Nos. DKC 11-2641, DKC 11-2642, DKC
11-2653, DKC 11-2654, 2011 WL 10583556, at *4 (D. Md. Dec. 13,
2011) (collecting cases); see also In re Perroton, 958 F.2d 889,
896 (9th Cir. 1991) (answering in the negative); In re Richmond,
247 F. App’x 831, 833 (7th Cir. 2007) (unpublished) (answering
in the affirmative). It appears that our Court of Appeals has
not directly ruled on this issue. See In re Fromal, 52 F.3d 321
(Table), 1995 WL 230253, at *1 n.1 (4th Cir. 1995).
2

appellant’s property and (2) whether the bankruptcy court should
have ordered the United States Marshals Service to serve
process.

Appellant’s remaining appeal again sought review of

the bankruptcy court’s denial of appellant’s motion to appear
telephonically and the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of two
adversary proceedings:

one related to appellant’s claim that

four individuals had illegally taken possession of his
automobile and another related to appellant’s claim that his
former wife falsely accused him of rape.
Appellant’s appeals possess neither an arguable basis in
law nor in fact.

Nothing in his materials suggests by more than

a mere “scintilla of evidence” that he is entitled to the relief
he seeks.
(1986).

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 253

Instead, his arguments offer only general and

conclusory statements unsupported by fact or law and are plainly
frivolous.
As a result, if appellant possessed in forma pauperis
status in the bankruptcy court proceedings and district court
action, the court would deny his application to proceed in forma
pauperis on appeal because his appeal is not taken in good
faith.

Alternatively, if appellant did not have leave to

proceed in forma pauperis in his district court action, the
court would deny his application for failure to adhere to the
requirements of Rule 24(a)(1).

Under either standard, his
3

applications to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. Nos. 21, 23,
21), must be DENIED.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(5),
appellant may refile his applications in the Court of Appeals.
The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to counsel of
record and to appellant, pro se.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of February, 2016.
ENTER:
David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge

4