Pounds v. Dieguez ( 2019 )

for the Southern District of Florida Wade D. Pounds, Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 19-20743-Civ-Scola ) Teresita Dieguez and others, ) Defendants. ) Order Denying Motion for Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis Plaintiff Wade D. Pounds has moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. The Court denies this motion for two reasons: (1) the motion does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 24(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, and (2) Pounds’s appeal does not appear to be taken in good faith. Either of these reasons is sufficient on its own to deny the motion. Rule 24(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that a party filing a motion in district court seeking to appeal in forma pauperis must attach an affidavit to the motion that, among other things, “claims an entitlement to redress” and “states the issues that the party intends to present on appeal.” Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(B)–(C). Pounds’s motion fails to do either. (See Pl.’s Mot., ECF No. 17). Instead Pounds merely describes his “issues on appeal” as, “42 U.S.C. sect. 1983 Civil Complaint,” and nothing more. Pounds has thus not identified any issues he intends to present on appeal nor has he stated a claim to an actual entitlement to redress. Pounds is bound by the requirements of Rule 24(a)(1) because he has previously been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Order, ECF No. 5.) Further, Pounds’s motion does not appear to be taken in good faith. “An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). “A party demonstrates good faith by seeking appellate review of any issue that is not frivolous when examined under an objective standard.” Ghee v. Retailers National Bank, 271 F. App’x 858, 859 (11th Cir. 2008). An appeal filed in forma pauperis is frivolous “when it appears the plaintiff has little or no chance of success,” meaning that the “factual allegations are clearly baseless or that the legal theories are indisputably meritless.” Carroll v. Gross, 984 F.2d 392, 393 (11th Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). Pounds’s appeal appears to have little chance of success: he does not even suggest, never mind actually set forth, a legal theory that appears to have any merit. For the reasons set forth above, the Court denies Pounds’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (ECF No. 17) and revokes the Court’s prior grant of leave to proceed in forma pauperis in the District Court. The Clerk is also directed to mail a copy of this order to the Plaintiff at the address listed below. Done and ordered, at Miami, Florida, on December 20, 2019. (Robert N. [4 Jr. United States District Judge Copy via U.S. mail to: Wade D. Pounds 448826 Everglades Correctional Institution Inmate Mail/Parcels 1599 SW 187th Avenue Miami, FL 33194