Valsaint v. City of Miami Beach, Florida

• Court: District Court, S.D. Florida
• Decided: April 6, 2023
• Docket: 1:21-cv-24143
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

Alberonick Valsaint, Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 21-24143-Civ-Scola ) City of Miami Beach, Florida and ) others, Defendants. )

Order Denying Motion for Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis Plaintiff Alberonick Valsaint has moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. (Pl.’s Mot., ECF No. 71.) 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) Valsaint’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). To begin with, Valsaint’s affidavit claiming entitlement to redress is unsigned. Second, Valsaint does not set forth the issues he intends to present on appeal. Instead, in a separate notice he complains generally that the Court’s decision was “very prejudice[d] against the Plaintiff” and that he had “a very lousy legal representation from the beginning.” (Pl.’s Not., ECF No. 70.) Within that same motion, Valsaint also complains about faulty information he received from the city of Miami Beach Police Department as well as “bogus claims by the judge.” (Id. at 1–2.) But, aside from his general allegations of a miscarriage of justice and the violation of his constitutional rights, Valsaint has not identified any specific issues he intends to present on appeal. Further, Valsaint’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). Valsaint’s appeal appears to have little or no chance of success: he does not even suggest, never mind actually set forth, a legal theory that appears to have any merit or any material factual allegations that would support an appeal. For the reasons set forth above, the Court denies Valsaint’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (ECF No. 71). Done and ordered, in Miami, Florida, on April 6, 2023. ? Robert N. Scola, Jr. United States District Judge Copy via U.S. mail to: Alberonick Valsaint PO Box 170931 Miami, FL 33017-0931