The opinion
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
ANTONIO OSCAR TATUM, )
)
Petitioner, )
) CIVIL ACTION NO.
v. ) 2:20cv694-MHT
) (WO)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Respondent. )
ORDER
This cause is now before the court on the
petitioner's application to proceed in district court
without prepaying fees or costs (Doc. 71), which the
court construes as a motion to proceed on appeal in
forma pauperis.
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.” 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). Applying this standard, this court is of the
opinion that the petitioner's appeal is without a legal
or factual basis and, accordingly, 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 petitioner's
motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is
denied; and that the appeal in this cause is certified,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), as not taken in
good faith.
DONE, this the 28th day of June, 2023.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE