The opinion
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
ROSIE LEE MURPHY, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) CIVIL ACTION NO.
v. ) 2:25cv395-MHT
) (WO)
ALABAMA MENTAL HEALTH )
AUTHORITY, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER
This cause is now before the court on plaintiff's
motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis (Doc.
30).
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) provides that, “An appeal
may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court
certifies in writing that it is not taken in good
faith.” In making this determination as to good faith,
a court must use an objective standard, such as whether
the appeal is “frivolous,” Coppedge v. United States,
369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962), or “has no substantive
merit.” United States v. Bottoson, 644 F.2d 1174, 1176
(5th Cir. Unit B May 15, 1981) (per curiam); see also
Rudolph v. Allen, 666 F.2d 519, 520 (11th Cir. 1982)
(per curiam); Morris v. Ross, 663 F.2d 1032 (11th Cir.
1981). As the court stated in its opinion dismissing
this case, plaintiff’s filings are rife with “fantastic
or delusional scenarios” that render her complaint
frivolous. See Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1349
(11th Cir. 2001) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 328 (1989)). Therefore, this court is of the
opinion that the plaintiff's appeal is without a legal
or factual basis and, resultingly, is frivolous and not
taken in good faith. See, e.g., Rudolph v. Allen,
supra; Brown v. Pena, 441 F. Supp. 1382 (S.D. Fla.
1977), aff'd without opinion, 589 F.2d 1113 (5th Cir.
1979).
***
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the plaintiff's
motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is
denied; and that the appeal in this cause is certified,
2
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), as not taken in
good faith.
In plaintiff wishes to proceed with this appeal,
she should pay the appellate filing fee of $605.00 to
the clerk of this court.
DONE, this the 3rd day of September, 2025.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3