Sanjeev Lath v. Oak Brook Condo Association, et al.

2017 DNH 197
CourtDistrict Court, D. New Hampshire
DecidedSeptember 19, 2017
Docket16-cv-463-LM
StatusPublished

This text of 2017 DNH 197 (Sanjeev Lath v. Oak Brook Condo Association, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sanjeev Lath v. Oak Brook Condo Association, et al., 2017 DNH 197 (D.N.H. 2017).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Sanjeev Lath

v. Civil No. 16-cv-463-LM Opinion No. 2017 DNH 197 Oak Brook Condominium Owners’ Association et al.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is plaintiff Sanjeev Lath’s motion (Doc.

No. 209), seeking to proceed in forma pauperis in his appeal of

the August 7, 2017 Order (Doc. No. 204). Lath’s appeal concerns

that Order’s establishment of a procedure restricting the filing

of motions in this action. See Not. Appeal (Doc. No. 210).

In determining whether an applicant may proceed on appeal

in forma pauperis, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and Fed.

R. App. P. 24(a), this court considers, among other things, the

applicant’s objective good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3);

Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). An appeal

that lacks any rational, arguable basis in law or fact is deemed

to be lacking in objective good faith. See Santiago-Lugo v.

United States, 94 F. Supp. 3d 156, 158 (D.P.R. 2015).

The August 7 Order (Doc. No. 204), in pertinent part, is a

procedural order. It is not reviewable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291

or § 1292(a), and it is not properly certified for interlocutory

review under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Lath’s appeal of that order is not grounded in any arguable basis in law or fact. Lath’s

motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (Doc. No. 209)

should be denied. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).

Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be

filed within fourteen days of receipt of this notice. See Fed.

R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The fourteen-day period may be extended

upon motion. Failure to file specific written objections to the

Report and Recommendation within the specified time waives the

right to appeal the district court’s order. See Santos-Santos

v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016).

______________________________ Andrea K. Johnstone United States Magistrate Judge

September 19, 2017

cc: Sanjeev Lath, pro se Gary M. Burt, Esq. Brendan D. O’Brien, Esq. Gerard Dufresne, pro se Daniel E. Will, Esq. Joshua M. Wyatt, Esq. Sabin R. Maxwell, Esq. Gregory V. Sullivan, Esq. Walter L. Maroney, Esq.

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

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Santos-Santos v. Torres-Centeno
842 F.3d 163 (First Circuit, 2016)
Santiago-Lugo v. United States
94 F. Supp. 3d 156 (D. Puerto Rico, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2017 DNH 197, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanjeev-lath-v-oak-brook-condo-association-et-al-nhd-2017.