United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fort Smith Division
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
MARK E. FORD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
a civil rights action provisionally filed pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) and (3) (2011), the Honorable P. K. Holmes,
III, United States District Judge, referred this case to the
undersigned for the purpose of making a Report and
before the Court are Plaintiffs' Motions to Appeal in
forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 16, 17).
filed their Complaint on May 23, 2019. (ECF No. 2). On June
14, 2019, the Court entered an Order dismissing this case
with prejudice for failure to state any meritorious claims.
(ECF Nos. 13, 14). In doing so, the Court noted it had
already dismissed Plaintiff's §§ 1983, 1962,
and 1964 claims in Watts v. Watts, No. 2:19-cv-02010
(W.D. Ark. Mar. 18, 2019), and adopted that analysis for the
duplicate claims in this case. (ECF No. 13 at 1-2). The Court
then noted Plaintiffs' additional federal claims against
twenty-one new Defendants were frivolous because they lacked
any basis in law or fact, and the Court lacked jurisdiction
over Plaintiff's state breach of contract claim.
filed their Notice of Appeal and Motions to Appeal IFP on
June 19, 2019. (ECF Nos. 15, 16, 17).
U.S.C. § 1915 governs applications for leave to appeal
in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1)
“. . . any court of the United States may authorize the
commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or
proceeding, civil or criminal, or appeal therein, without
prepayment of fees or security therefore, by a person who
submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets
such prisoner possesses that the person is unable to pay such
fees or give security therefor. Such affidavit shall state
the nature of the action, defense or appeal and affiant's
belief that the person is entitled to redress.”
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.” “Good faith, ” within the meaning
of the statute, must be judged by an objective and not
subjective standard, and a litigant's good faith is
demonstrated when he seeks appellate review of any issue that
is not frivolous. Coppedge v. United States, 369
U.S. 438, 445, 82 S.Ct. 917, 921, 8 L.Ed.2d 21 (1962).
proceed in forma pauperis is a privilege and not a right.
Green v. Wyrick, 428 F.Supp. 728, 731 (W.D. Mo.
1976). “A plaintiff, even though of small means, could
reasonably be asked to some small degree to ‘put his
money where his mouth is,' it being all too easy to file
suits . . . if it costs nothing whatever to do so.”
Id. at 731-32. The decision of whether to grant or
deny in forma pauperis status under § 1915 “is
within the sound discretion of the trial court.”
Lee v. McDonald's Corp., 231 F.3d 456, 458 (8th
Cir. 2000) (internal citation omitted).
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i-iii) provides that on review,
the court “shall dismiss the case at any time if the
court determines that . . . the action or appeal - (i) is
frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief.”
discussed by the Court in its Order dismissing this case,
Plaintiffs failed to state any meritorious claims in this
case. As they failed to state claims upon which relief may be
granted, their appeal of the dismissal is not taken in good