Murphy v. Alabama Mental Health Authority (MAG+)

Opinion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

ROSIE LEE MURPHY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. v. ) 2:25cv395-MHT ) (WO) ALABAMA MENTAL HEALTH ) AUTHORITY, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER This cause is now before the court on plaintiff's motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis (Doc. 30). 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) provides that, “An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” In making this determination as to good faith, a court must use an objective standard, such as whether the appeal is “frivolous,” Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962), or “has no substantive merit.” United States v. Bottoson, 644 F.2d 1174, 1176 (5th Cir. Unit B May 15, 1981) (per curiam); see also Rudolph v. Allen, 666 F.2d 519, 520 (11th Cir. 1982)

(per curiam); Morris v. Ross, 663 F.2d 1032 (11th Cir. 1981). As the court stated in its opinion dismissing this case, plaintiff’s filings are rife with “fantastic or delusional scenarios” that render her complaint

frivolous. See Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2001) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989)). Therefore, this court is of the opinion that the plaintiff's appeal is without a legal

or factual basis and, resultingly, is frivolous and not taken in good faith. See, e.g., Rudolph v. Allen, supra; Brown v. Pena, 441 F. Supp. 1382 (S.D. Fla.

1977), aff'd without opinion, 589 F.2d 1113 (5th Cir. 1979). *** Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the plaintiff's

motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is denied; and that the appeal in this cause is certified,

2 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), as not taken in good faith.

In plaintiff wishes to proceed with this appeal, she should pay the appellate filing fee of $605.00 to the clerk of this court. DONE, this the 3rd day of September, 2025.

/s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE