Bridges v. Shipman
This text of Bridges v. Shipman (Bridges v. Shipman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Michigan primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
ANTONIO VALLIN BRIDGES,
Plaintiff, Case No. 24-cv-11941 Honorable F. Kay Behm v.
BRIAN SHIPMAN, et al., Defendants. /
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTIONS (ECF NOS. 13, 14) AND APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL
The court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint at the screening stage and denied his application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to the “three strikes rule.” ECF No. 11; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (1996). Plaintiff then filed two motions to supplement the complaint. ECF Nos. 13, 14. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal (ECF No. 15) and an application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. ECF No. 17. Plaintiff’s notice of appeal confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests this court of jurisdiction to consider matters involved in the appeal. See Williamson v. Recovery Ltd. P’ship, 731 F.3d 608, 626 (6th Cir. 2013). Accordingly,
the court lacks jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff’s motions to supplement the complaint. The court retains jurisdiction to consider “matters that will aid the
appellate process,” such as a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Id. The court may grant in forma pauperis status if the court finds that an appeal is being taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24 (a); Foster
v. Ludwick, 208 F. Supp. 2d 750, 765 (E.D. Mich. 2002). Good faith requires a showing that the issues raised are not frivolous, or “arguable on the merits.” Id. The court will DENY Defendant’s motion, because the issues raised are
frivolous and not arguable on the merits, for the reasons stated in the court’s October 1, 2024 order. ECF No. 11.
It is further ORDERED that Defendant’s motions to supplement the complaint are DENIED for lack of jurisdiction. SO ORDERED.
Date: May 6, 2025 s/F. Kay Behm F. Kay Behm United States District Judge
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bridges v. Shipman, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bridges-v-shipman-mied-2025.