Scott v. Patel

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

LAURA M. SCOTT,

Plaintiff, Case No. 19-12676 v. Hon. Marianne O. Battani NANDAN PATEL,

Defendants. _____________________________________/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS= MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS IN SIXTH CIRCUIT APPEAL

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff, Laura M. Scott=s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (AIFP@) on appeal (ECF No. 103). Plaintiff, who proceeded in this Court without counsel, filed a Notice of Appeal of the dismissal of her action. For the reasons

that follow, the motion is DENIED. I. BACKGROUND

After Scott filed her lawsuit, the Court referred it to the assigned Magistrate

Judge, for report and recommendation (AR&R@). See 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Defendants= various motions be

granted, and Plaintiff advanced 35 objections to the R&R. Because the objections

failed to address or undermine the Magistrate Judge=s specific reasoning and recommendations, the Court adopted the R&R in its entirety and entered a Judgment of

Dismissal. (ECF No. 101).

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(1) provides that a party in a civil action

"who desires to appeal in forma pauperis must file a motion in the district court." In addition, Rule 24(a)(2) states, "If the district court grants the motion, the party may

proceed on appeal without prepaying or giving security for fees and costs, unless a statute provides otherwise." Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(2). "If the district court denies the

2 motion, it must state its reasons in writing." Id. Further, 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(a)(3)

provides that "[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies

in writing that it is not taken in good faith." III. ANALYSIS

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff=s application and finds that even if her financial

status meets the requirements to proceed IFP, her appeal is not taken in good faith. See Shepard v. Morvzin, No. 16-3236, 2016 WL 10592246, at *1 (6th Cir. Dec. 9, 2016)

(explaining that an appeal that >lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact' would not

be taken in good faith") (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989)). Scott has not offered any basis for her appeal. Consequently, the Court is

unable to ascertain what nonfrivolous issues, if any, she intends to pursue before the

Court of Appeals. The inadequacy of Plaintiff=s showing may be due to her submission of the wrong form in support of her request for IFP status on appeal. Specifically, her

motion is accompanied by an application to proceed in the district court without prepayment of fees. However, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(1), an appealing party must (I)

3 submit the information called for in AForm 4 of the Appendix of Forms@ to establish her

inability to pay the usual filing fee, and also (ii) Astate[] the issues that [she] intends to

present on appeal.@ In sum, Scott has not provided the full range of financial information specified in

Form 4 nor has she identified the issues she wishes to pursue on appeal. Accordingly,

the Court DENIES her motion for leave to proceed IFP in the Sixth Circuit. IV. CONCLUSION

In this case, the Court CERTIFIES, pursuant to Rule 24(a), that any appeal in this

matter would not be taken in good faith. Leave to appeal in forma pauperis is therefore DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

September 3, 2020 s/Marianne O. Battani MARIANNE O. BATTANI United States District Judge

4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon counsel of record on this date by ordinary mail and/or electronic filing.

s/Kristen MacKay Case Manager