“After this required information has been filed, the district court must ascertain both the individual's pauper status and the merits of the appeal.”
How later courts described this case
- “After this required information has been filed, the district court must ascertain both the individual's pauper status and the merits of the appeal.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
Dannie Rainey, Case No. 3:22-cv-42
Plaintiff,
v. MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
Perkins Township Board of Trustees, et al.,
Defendants.
On June 21, 2024, I denied pro se Plaintiff Dannie Rainey’s motion to enjoin the proceedings
in a state court criminal case in which he is the defendant. (Doc. No. 91). In response, he has filed
a Notice of Appeal indicating he seeks appellate review of my June 21, 2024 Order.1 (Doc. No. 95).
Related to his appeal, Rainey filed a motion to enjoin the state court criminal proceedings purpotedly
under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8, (Doc. No. 97), and a motion to proceed on appeal in
forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 98). Aside from the appellate matter, Rainey has also filed a motion for
electronic filing privileges. (Doc. No. 96). I address each of these motions in the order they were
filed.
1 In the Notice, Rainey also “request[s] that this court reopen its action entered on 31 day of March,
2023, granting Defendants’ Request to Stay this case until the conclusion of Mr. Rainey’s state
criminal proceeding pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6)(C) on the grounds that no party would be
prejudiced if the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reviews this decision.” (Doc. No. 95). But Federal
Appellate Rule 4(a)(6) requires three conditions be satisfied, and not merely the one found in
subsection (c). Because Rainey makes no attempt to show the other two conditions are satisfied, his
request to reopen the time to appeal the March 31, 2023 Order must be denied.
First, Rainey’s motion for electronic filing privileges. On the matter of pro se electronic
access and filing, the Northern District of Ohio’s Electronic Filing Policies and Procedures Manual
provides the following:
While parties and pro se litigants may register to receive “read only” electronic filing
accounts so that they may access documents in the system and receive electronic
notice, typically only registered attorneys, as Officers of the Court, will be permitted
to file electronically. The Judicial Officer may, at his or her discretion, grant a pro se
litigant who demonstrates a willingness and capability to file documents electronically
permission to register to do so. Permission to file electronically may be revoked at
any time.
Northern District of Ohio Electronic Filing Policies and Procedures Manual (eff. Feb. 10, 2020),
available at https://www.ohnd.uscourts.gov/electronic-filing. While Rainey is obviously “willing” to file
documents electronically, he has provided no evidence that he has the “capaibility” to do so.
Because Rainey has not shown he is proficient at using this court’s CM/ECF electronic filing
system, I deny his motion for electronic filing privileges. (Doc. No. 96).
Second, Rainey’s motion to enjoin the state court criminal proceedings under Federal Rule
of Appellate Procedure 8. Rule 8(c) provides that a party may move the district court for “an order .
. . granting an injunction while an appeal is pending.” But for the reasons stated in my June 21, 2024
Order, I conclude this court may not enjoin those state criminal proceedings. (Doc. No. 91).
Rainey has set forth no evidence or authority that would alter my conclusion. Therefore, I deny
Rainey’s motion for an injunction pending appeal. (Doc. No. 97).
And finally, Rainey’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Under Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 24(a), a party who did not proceed in forma pauperis in the district-court action
but desires do so on appeal “must file a motion in the district court [and] attach an affidavit that:
(A) shows in the detail prescribed by Form 4 of the Appendix of Forms the party’s inability
to pay or to give security for fees and costs;
(B) claims an entitlement to redress; and
(C) states the issues that the party intends to present on appeal.”
Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1). Rainey submitted a form satisfactory to show he is unable to pay. But he
includes no affidavit showing an entitlement to redress or issues he intends to present in this appeal.
Even if I consider his general reference to my June 21, 2024 Order in his motion to sufficiently
“state the issues [he] intends to present on appeal,” his submission would still fell short as it
mentions no claim of entitlement to redress. Because Rainey has failed to show his appeal may be
meritorious, his motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis must be denied. (Doc. No. 98). See
also Callihan v. Schneider, 178 F.3d 800, 803 (6th Cir. 1999) (“After this required information has been
filed, the district court must ascertain both the individual's pauper status and the merits of the
appeal.”).
For the reasons stated above, each of Rainey’s motions filed on June 26, 2024, are denied.
(Doc. Nos. 96, 97, and 98).
So Ordered.
s/ Jeffrey J. Helmick
United States District Judge