Rutherford v. United States

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BRUCE ALLEN RUTHERFORD #27006-078§ § versus § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:19-CV-348 § CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 4:17-CR-41(1) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On July 17, 2023, Appellant Bruce Allen Rutherford filed a motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (Dkt. #68). Appellant may proceed in forma pauperis on appeal only if he is economically eligible and presents a nonfrivolous issue. See Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). A review of the case reveals that, on June 22, 2023, Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal (Dkt. #66) concerning the Court’s denial of his “Motion to Reconsider Ruling on Defendant’s Rule 60(b)(6) Motion on Judicial Bias, Prejudice, and Abuse of Discretion.” On July 17, 2023, he also filed a Notice of Appeal (Dkt. #67) concerning the Final Judgment (Dkt. #51) issued in this case. Since Appellant filed the instant motion on the same day that he filed his Notice of Appeal concerning Final Judgment, it is reasonable to conclude that appealing Final Judgment is the matter in which he seeks to proceed in forma pauperis. Nonetheless, Appellant attached a copy of his trust data sheet to his motion, which shows $815.53 in “National 6 Months Deposits” and $956.30 in “National 6 Months Avg Daily Balance.” Based on the financial information, Appellant fails to show he is economically eligible to proceed in forma paupers on appeal, regardless of whether he seeks such status for appealing the Final Judgment or the Postjudgment Order denying his “Motion to Reconsider Ruling on Defendant’s Rule 60(b)(6) Motion on Judicial Bias, Prejudice, and Abuse of Discretion.” Id. He also fails to present a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. Id. It is therefore ORDERED the motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (Dkt. #68) is DENIED.