Rewanwar et al v. Van De Water et al

Filing 14

ORDER signed by Chief Judge Charles N Clevert, Jr on 3/6/2012 Denying 8 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis; and Denying 9 Motion to Stay. (cc: all counsel, via US Mail to Plaintiff) (nts)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
PRASAD DNYANOBA REWANWAR,
S.R., a minor,
and S.R., a minor,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 12-C-0099

JUDGE LINDA VAN DE WATER,
ATTORNEY SIDNEY SODOS,
ASHWINI ASHOK SAMMANWAR
Defendants.
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS
AND MOTION TO STAY
Prasad Rewanwar brought nine civil actions in this court and was granted leave to
proceed in forma pauperis after demonstrating he was unable to pay the filing fees.
However, each of the cases was dismissed based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and,
in one case, Younger abstention.

The cases attacked a state court judgment by

Waukesha Circuit Court Judge Linda Van De Water in Rewanwar’s divorce and child
custody matter and in one instance sought this court’s intervention in a state-court criminal
proceeding. Judgment was entered dismissing the nine actions, and Rewanwar has
appealed the judgments in all (as well as the judgments in six actions dismissed by U.S.
District Judge J.P. Stadtmueller).
Rewanwar seeks leave to appeal in forma pauperis to avoid paying the appellate
filing fee of $455. In addition, he asks this court “to stay and revert the Waukesha County
Cir. Court (Family) and stay . . . the proceedings in the criminal matter” (Mot. to Stay 1), to
stay the judgments in the nine cases previously dismissed and Judge Stadtmueller’s denial

of in forma pauperis on appeal, and to “remov[e] and transfer . . . both Divorce and the
ongoing Criminal Action with the State Cir. Court” (Motion to Stay 3). All requests will be
denied.
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) authorizes the commencement of an appeal without
prepayment of fees by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all
assets he possesses and that he is unable to pay such fees. Section 1915(a)(3) adds that
an appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the district court certifies in writing that the
appeal is not taken in good faith. “Good faith” is an objective standard. Coppedge v.
United States, 369 U.S. 438, 446 (1962); Lee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025, 1026 (7th Cir.
2000). An appeal is taken in “good faith” if it seeks review of any issue that is not clearly
frivolous, Coppedge, 369 U.S. at 446; Lee, 209 F.3d at 1026, meaning that a reasonable
person could suppose it to have at least some legal merit, Lee, 209 F.3d at 1026; Howard
v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). The existence of any nonfrivolous issue on
appeal is sufficient to require the court to grant the petition for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. Dixon v. Pitchford, 843 F.2d 268, 270 (7th Cir. 1988).
Under Fed. R. App. P. 24(a), a party granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in
the district court may proceed in forma pauperis on appeal without further authorization
unless the district court certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith or determines that
the party is otherwise not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis.
In dismissing Rewanwar’s nine cases, this court determined that it lacked jurisdiction
to consider them. The cases were devoid of any basis for being in federal court and
Rewanwar was told so. Neither his request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on
appeal nor his motion to stay provides a reason to alter the earlier assessment of the
2

cases. “In the ordinary case if the suit is frivolous the appeal from the dismissal of the suit
will also be frivolous,” and it is improper for the district judge to grant leave to proceed in
forma pauperis on appeal. Tolefree v. Cudahy, 49 F.3d 1243, 1244 (7th Cir. 1995); see
also Lee, 209 F.3d at 1026-27. Hence, no reasonable person could suppose this appeal
to have any merit.
Regarding the motion to stay, Rewanwar again seeks this court’s intervention and
reversal of a state-court judgment and, in at least one case, interference with the statecourt criminal case. As explained in the orders dismissing each of the nine cases, this
court is not the place for Rewanwar to challenge the state court proceedings. Therefore,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) this court certifies that this appeal has not been taken
in good faith. And for the reasons stated above,
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for in forma pauperis status on appeal and
motion to stay are denied.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 6th day of March, 2012.
BY THE COURT
/s/ C. N. Clevert, Jr.
C. N. CLEVERT, JR.
CHIEF U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE

3