Myles, Samuel v. Gupta, Ravi et al

Filing 163

ORDER Construing 159 Notice of Appeal as Request to Proceed ifp. Leave to proceed ifp denied on plaintiff's second 159 notice of appeal: USCA case no. 16-2695. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 7/22/2016. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

SAMUEL MYLES,

ORDER
Plaintiff,

14-cv-661-bbc

v.
RAVI GUPTA and UNITED STATES,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - On April 22, 2016, judgment was entered in this case, granting defendants’ motions
for summary judgment and dismissing this case. Plaintiff Samuel Myles filed two separate
notices of appeal, dkt. ##136 and 159, which prompted the Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit to open two separate appellate cases, Appeal Nos. 16-1992 and 16-2695.
Plaintiff has since paid the filing fee associated with the first appeal, No. 16-1992, but the
second appeal, No. 16-2695, remains suspended pending notification that any necessary
filing fee has been assessed and paid.
With respect to plaintiff’s second (and likely superfluous) appeal, plaintiff has not
paid the necessary filing fee and has not sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this
appeal. To the extent plaintiff is seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis in his second
appeal, this request is denied for the same reason that his request to proceed in forma
pauperis was denied for his first appeal. Plaintiff has struck out under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g),

1

and is not eligible to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.

If for some reason plaintiff

wishes to simultaneously pursue two separate appeals related to the same case, plaintiff will
need to pay another $505 filing fee for the second appeal, Appeal No. 16-2695. If plaintiff
only wants to pursue Appeal No. 16-1992, he should inform the Court of Appeals that he
wishes to dismiss the second appeal.
Plaintiff may delay his payment on his second appeal if he challenges this court’s
decision to deny his request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal because of his
§ 1915(g) status. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5). Such a challenge must be filed within 30 days
of this order. If the court of appeals decides that it was improper to apply the three-strikes
bar against plaintiff in this case, then the matter will be remanded to this court for a
determination whether plaintiff’s appeal is taken in good faith. If the court of appeals
determines that this court was correct in finding that § 1915(g) bars him from taking his
appeal in forma pauperis, the $505 filing fee payment will be due in full immediately.
Whatever the scenario, plaintiff is responsible for insuring that the required sum is remitted
to the court at the appropriate time.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Samuel Myles’s request for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis on his second appeal is DENIED. The clerk of court is requested to insure that

2

plaintiff’s obligation to pay the $505 is reflected in this court’s financial records.
Entered this 22d day of July, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

3