Restricted Filer - Cole v. State of Florida

• Court: District Court, S.D. Florida
• Decided: June 21, 2023
• Docket: 0:19-cv-62814
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

Donald M. Cole, Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Civil Action No. 19-62814-Civ-Scola State of Florida and Pentagon, ) Defendants. )

Order Denying Motion for Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis Plaintiff Donald M. Cole has moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. (Pl.’s Mot., ECF No. 25.) The Court denies the motion for two reasons: (1) the motion does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 24(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, and (2) Cole’s appeal is not taken in good faith. Either of these reasons is sufficient on its own to deny the motion. Rule 24(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that a party filing a motion in district court seeking to appeal in forma pauperis must attach an affidavit to the motion that, among other things, “claims an entitlement to redress” and “states the issues that the party intends to present on appeal.” Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(B)–(C). Cole’s motion fails to do either, simply alleging, without explanation or detail, “terrorism on self personally” and some kind of fraud involving doctors and insurance, while at the same time referencing what appears to be a case number involving other litigation. This is wholly insufficient. Further, Cole’s motion is not taken in good faith. “An 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). “A party demonstrates good faith by seeking appellate review of any issue that is not frivolous when examined under an objective standard.” Ghee v. Retailers National Bank, 271 F. App’x 858, 859 (11th Cir. 2008). An appeal filed in forma pauperis is frivolous “when it appears the plaintiff has little or no chance of success,” meaning that the “factual allegations are clearly baseless or that the legal theories are indisputably meritless.” Carroll v. Gross, 984 F.2d 392, 393 (11th Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). Judgment in the case was entered almost four years ago and Cole’s appeal has no chance of success: he does not even suggest, never mind actually set forth, a legal theory that has any merit or any material factual allegations that would support an appeal. For the reasons set forth above, the Court denies Cole’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (ECF No. 25). Done and ordered, in Miami, Florida, on June 21, 2023.

(Robert N. Scola, Jr. United States District Judge