Vue, Kong v. State of Wisconsin
ORDER Construing Notice of Appeal as Request to Proceed ifp. Leave to proceed ifp denied. The clerk of court is directed to insure that plaintiff's obligation to pay the $455 fee for filing his appeal is reflected in the court's financial records. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 7/6/2012. (jef),(ps)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - KONG PHENG VUE,
STATE OF WISCONSIN,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - On June 25, 2012, I denied plaintiff Kong Pheng Vue’s request for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis and dismissed his case for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. Judgment was entered on the same day. Now plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.
Because plaintiff has not paid the $455 filing fee for filing an appeal, I will construe his
notice of appeal as a request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
A district court has authority to deny a request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 for one or more of the following reasons: the litigant wishing to
take an appeal has not established indigence; the appeal is taken in bad faith; or the litigant
is a prisoner and has three strikes. § 1915(a)(1),(3) and (g). Sperow v. Melvin, 153 F.3d
780, 781 (7th Cir. 1998). Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on
appeal will be denied, because I am certifying that his appeal is not taken in good faith.
In Lucien v. Roegner, 682 F.2d 625, 626 (7th Cir. 1982), the court of appeals
instructed district courts to find bad faith in cases in which a plaintiff is appealing the same
claims the court found to be without legal merit. Lee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025, 1027 (7th
Cir. 2000). Plaintiff is trying to appeal the same claims on which the court denied him leave
to proceed. In the absence of any legally meritorious basis for plaintiff’s appeal, I must
certify that the appeal is not taken in good faith.
Because I am certifying plaintiff’s appeal as not having been taken in good faith, he
cannot proceed with his appeal without prepaying the $455 filing fee unless the court of
appeals gives him permission to do so. Under Fed. R. App. P. 24, plaintiff has 30 days from
the date of this order in which to ask the court of appeals to review this court’s denial of
leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Plaintiff must include with his motion, an
affidavit as described in the first paragraph of Fed. R. App. P. 24(a), with a statement of
issues he intends to argue on appeal. Also, he must send along a copy of this order. Plaintiff
should be aware that he must file these documents in addition to the notice of appeal he has
filed previously. If he does not file a motion requesting review of this order, the court of
appeals may choose not to address the denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis on
appeal. Instead, it may require plaintiff to pay the full $455 filing fee before it considers his
appeal further. If he does not pay the fees within the deadline set, it is possible that the
court of appeals will dismiss the appeal.
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Kong Pheng Vue’s request for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis on appeal, dkt. #10, is DENIED. I certify that plaintiff’s appeal is not taken
in good faith. The clerk of court is directed to insure that plaintiff’s obligation to pay the
$455 fee for filing his appeal is reflected in the court’s financial records.
Entered this 6th day of July, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
BARBARA B. CRABB
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?