Kidd (ID 93399) v. Baker

CourtDistrict Court, D. Kansas
DecidedJune 7, 2023
Docket5:22-cv-03123
StatusUnknown

This text of Kidd (ID 93399) v. Baker (Kidd (ID 93399) v. Baker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kidd (ID 93399) v. Baker, (D. Kan. 2023).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

ANTHONY S. KIDD,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 22-3123-SAC

JEREMY BAKER, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff brought this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. On December 7, 2022, the Court entered an Order (Doc. 31) dismissing this matter. On December 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal (Doc. 35) and a Motion for Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 36). The Court granted the motion. (Doc. 39). On April 20, 2023, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a mandate affirming the dismissal. (Doc. 45). Plaintiff then filed a Motion for Reconsideration with this Court (Doc. 46), which the Court denied on May 11, 2023 (Doc. 48). Plaintiff has now filed a Notice of Appeal (Doc. 51) as to the denial of his Motion for Reconsideration. The matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 54). 28 U.S.C. § 1915 provides that “[a]n 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). The Court finds that Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal because his appeal is not taken in good faith. There is no new substantial question for review since Plaintiff’s first appeal, and an appeal would be futile. See United States v. Farley, 238 F. 2d 575, 576 (2d Cir. 1956). Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 54). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this Court certifies that Plaintiff’s appeal is not taken in good faith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 54) is denied. Copies of this order shall be transmitted to Plaintiff and to the Clerk of the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated June 7, 2023, in Kansas City, Kansas.

S/ John W. Lungstrum JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Charles Leo Farley
238 F.2d 575 (Second Circuit, 1956)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Kidd (ID 93399) v. Baker, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kidd-id-93399-v-baker-ksd-2023.