The opinion
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
KENNETH E. MORRIS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) CIVIL ACTION NO.
v. ) 2:23cv001-MHT
) (WO)
JOHN Q. HAMM, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER
This cause is now before the court on plaintiff's
notice of appeal (Doc. 17), which the court is treating
as a motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis.
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."
See also F.R.A.P. 24(a)(3)(A) (“A party who was permitted
to proceed in forma pauperis in the district-court action
... may proceed on appeal in forma pauperis without
further authorization, unless ... the district court--
before or after the notice of appeal is filed--certifies
that the appeal 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, for the reasons stated in
the recommendation of the magistrate judge, that the
plaintiff'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 plaintiff'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), as not taken in good faith.
DONE, this the 14th day of July, 2023.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE