Pugh v. U.S. Department of Education (MAG+)

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION DEVIN BRANDIS PUGH, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 2:25-cv-00032-RAH-CWB ) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ) EDUCATION, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER On May 20, 2025, the Magistrate Judge outlined the deficiencies in the Plaintiff’s Complaint under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and further notified the Plaintiff that his allegations do not show standing. The Magistrate Judge therefore ordered the Plaintiff to file an amended complaint on or by June 3, 2025, and warned the Plaintiff that failure to file an amended complaint that met the Order’s pleading requirements would result in a recommendation of dismissal. (Doc. 19 at 6 (“Plaintiff is expressly cautioned that his failure to file an Amended Complaint meeting the requirements of this Order and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed.” (emphasis in original).) The Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint, let alone one that meets the requirements of that Order. With no amended complaint having been filed, on June 18, 2025, the Magistrate Judge entered a recommendation of dismissal of this lawsuit to which no timely objections have been filed. (Doc. 23.) The Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal because of the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s Order (doc. 19) of May 20, 2025, because the Complaint fails the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for lack of standing. Upon an independent review of the record, the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation, the Recommendation will be adopted, and this case will be dismissed. Further, title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) provides that “[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis [(“IFP”)] if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” Good faith is determined by the objective question of whether the appeal is “frivolous,” Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962), or is “without arguable merit,” Sun v. Forrester, 939 F.2d 924, 925 (11th Cir. 1991) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “In deciding whether an IFP appeal is frivolous, a district court determines whether there is a factual and legal basis, of constitutional dimension, for the asserted wrong, however inartfully pleaded.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In other words, a lawsuit is frivolous if “the plaintiff’s realistic chances of ultimate success are slight.” Clark v. Ga. Pardons & Paroles Bd., 915 F.2d 636, 639 (11th Cir. 1990) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Should the Plaintiff file an appeal on this dismissal order, the appeal would be frivolous and without arguable merit. Thus, any appeal from this Order will be certified as frivolous. CONCLUSION Upon an independent review of the record and the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation, it is ORDERED as follows: 1) The Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation (doc. 23) is ADOPTED; 2) Any appeal in this cause is hereby CERTIFIED, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a), as without merit and therefore would not be taken in good faith; 3) The Motion to Appoint Counsel (doc. 25) is DENIED; 4) The Motion to Appoint Counsel and Motion for Relief from Obligation to Prepay Fees on Appeals (doc. 26) is DENIED; and 5) The Motion of Obligation to Prepay Fees for Relief and Motion to Appoint Counsel (doc. 27) is DENIED. 6) This action will be dismissed without prejudice. 7) A separate judgment will issue. DONE and ORDERED on this the 14th day of July 2025.

R. AUSTIN JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE