Ain Jeem, Inc. v. The Individuals, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

AIN JEEM, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 8:21-cv-1331-VMC-AEP

THE INDIVIDUALS, PARTNERSHIPS, AND UNICORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE A,

Defendant. /

ORDER

This cause came before the Court for a hearing upon (1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Defendant Carl Puckett’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 228) and (2) Defendant Carl Puckett’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Defendant Carl Puckett’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 233). Primarily, Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the undersigned’s Order permitting Carl Puckett to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, while Defendant Carl Puckett opposes Plaintiff’s requested relief. As discussed more fully during the hearing, the temporary restraining order in effect and the request for a preliminary injunction pending at the time Carl Puckett initiated his appeal are no longer at issue. Namely, the temporary restraining order, along with its restraint upon Carl Puckett’s Etsy request for a preliminary injunction against DEVILDOGSTREASURE (Doc. 218), the entity which Defendant Carl Puckett is doing business as and over which he maintains control. As it stands currently, therefore, no restraints or other injunctive

relief are in place against DEVILDOGSTREASURE or Carl Puckett, thereby rendering those issues moot. Additionally, to the extent Plaintiff seeks to appeal any other matters, his request to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Upon further review, and given the removal of the freeze or other restraints on the accounts of Defendant Carl Puckett

and DEVILDOGSTREASURE, Defendant Carl Puckett fails to qualify as indigent for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. During the undersigned’s initial consideration of Defendant Carl Puckett’s application to appeal in forma pauperis, the undersigned considered Defendant Carl Puckett’s statements that his accounts were frozen due

to the restraints set forth in this action in determining that he could not access funds sufficient to pay the filing fee. Given that Defendant Carl Puckett can now access his accounts and the funds contained therein and appears to maintain sufficient funds between income received and assets owned by both he and his wife, Marcella Puckett, he does not qualify as indigent for proceeding in forma pauperis on appeal.1

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915; see also Martinez v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 364 F.3d 1305, 1307

1 During the hearing, Marcella Puckett represented that she is the wife of Defendant Carl Puckett. Marcella Puckett has initiated her own lawsuit against Plaintiff as well as its legal counsel and sought to proceed in forma pauperis in that action. See Puckett v. Ain Jeem, Inc., Case No. 8:21-cv-1834-CEH-SPF (M.D. Fla.). Notably, in that action, United States Magistrate Judge Sean Flynn concluded that Marcella Puckett did not qualify as indigent. (11th Cir. 2004) (discussing the factors a court should consider on an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915). As indicated in the undersigned’s prior Order, pursuant to Rule 24(a),

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, a party in a district-court action seeking to appeal in forma pauperis must file a motion in the district court and attach an affidavit that shows 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. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(A)-(C). As with a request to proceed in forma

pauperis in a district-court action, a court considering a request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal must keep in mind its mandate to dismiss a case at any time if it determines the action or appeal is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is

immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). If the district court denies a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, the court must state its reasons in writing. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(2). When a district court denies a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, the district court clerk must immediately notify the parties and the court of appeals. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(4)(A).

Here, Defendant Carl Puckett’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is denied because the issues he seeks to appeal have been rendered moot and, to the extent any appealable issues remain, he does not qualify as indigent under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Defendant Carl Puckett’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 228) is GRANTED. 2. The Order granting Defendant Carl Puckett’s Motion to Proceed Jn Forma Pauperis (Doc. 217) is VACATED. 3. Defendant Carl Puckett’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 158) DENIED. The Clerk is directed to notify the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit of the denial of the motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. 4. Defendant Carl Puckett’s Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Defendant Carl Puckett’s Motion to Proceed Jn Forma Pauperis and Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 233) is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on this 27th day of October, 2021. 7 oes oe Let, p/"} V)} ANTHONY E.PORGELLY United Sfates Magistrate Judge

cc: Counsel of Record Defendant Carl Puckett, pro se