Opinion

Jacoby v. Jones (INMATE 2)

Court
District Court, M.D. Alabama
Filed
Oct 4, 2019
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 16.5%

The opinion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

BRENT JACOBY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 2:15cv382-MHT

) (WO)

WARDEN KARLA JONES, )

et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

This cause is now before the court on plaintiff's

“Notice of Intent to Appeal” (doc. no. 96), which the

court is treating as a notice of appeal, a motion for

leave to appeal in forma pauperis, and a motion to

reconsider the entry of judgment.

Regarding the motion for leave to appeal in forma

pauperis, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) 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

1

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). Applying this standard, this court is of the

opinion, for the reasons stated in the recommendation

of the magistrate judge, that the plaintiff lacks a

valid legal or factual basis for appeal, and,

accordingly, an appeal would be 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:

(1) The plaintiff's notice of intent to appeal

(doc. no. 96) is treated as a notice of appeal.

(2) The plaintiff’s motion to proceed on appeal in

forma pauperis (doc. no. 96) is denied; and the appeal

2

in this cause is certified, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(a), as not taken in good faith.

(3) The plaintiff's motion to reconsider the entry

of judgment (doc. no. 96) is denied.

DONE, this the 4th day of October, 2019.

/s/ Myron H. Thompson____

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.