United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR DISMISSAL, CERTIFYING AN APPEAL WOULD NOT BE TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH, AND DENYING LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS
JAMES D. TODD, District Judge.
On September 18, 2014, Plaintiff Eunice Payne Durrett, a resident of Memphis, Tennessee, filed a pro se civil complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, accompanied by a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1 & 2.) United States Magistrate Judge Diane K. Vescovo subsequently granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 4.) On September 30, 2014, Magistrate Judge Vescovo issued a Report and Recommendation in which she recommended the case be dismissed sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). (ECF No. 5.) Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due within fourteen days. However, Plaintiff has filed no objections.
In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that she "requested reasonable accommodations to move to a lower floor several times away from noise because living on the 8th floor was aggrevating [sic] her back." (ECF No. 1 at 2.) She seeks compensation "for all the pain and suffering Mgmt put me through for no reason at all. Writ [sic] me a check to cover the costs." ( Id. at 3.)
Magistrate Judge Vescovo has recommended the complaint be dismissed prior to service of process pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) because it fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Specifically, Magistrate Judge Vescovo found that Plaintiff has failed to alleged how the Defendants acted under color of state law or how the Defendants violated her rights under the Constitution and laws of the United States. Having reviewed the complaint and the law, the Court agrees with that recommendation. The issuance of a more detailed written opinion is unnecessary. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the R&R and hereby DISMISSES this case for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted, pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
The Court must also consider whether Plaintiff should be allowed to appeal this decision in forma pauperis, should she seek to do so. Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, a non-prisoner desiring to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis must obtain pauper status under Fed. R. App. P. 24(a). See Callihan v. Schneider, 178 F.3d 800, 803-04 (6th Cir. 1999). Rule 24(a)(3) provides that if a party was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in the district court, she may also proceed on appeal in forma pauperis without further authorization unless the district court "certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith or finds that the party is not otherwise entitled to proceed in forma pauperis." If the district court denies pauper status, the party may file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the Court of Appeals. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(4)-(5).
The good faith standard is an objective one. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). The test for whether an appeal is taken in good faith is whether the litigant seeks appellate review of any issue that is not frivolous. Id. It would be inconsistent for a court to determine that a complaint should be dismissed prior to service on the defendants, but has sufficient merit to support an appeal in forma pauperis. See Williams v. Kullman, 722 F.2d 1048, 1050 n.1 (2d Cir. 1983). The same considerations that lead the Court to dismiss this case for failure to state a claim also compel the conclusion that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
It is CERTIFIED, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 24(a), that any appeal in this matter by Plaintiff is not taken in good faith. Leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is, therefore, DENIED. Accordingly, if Plaintiff files a notice of appeal, she must also pay the full $505 appellate filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and supporting affidavit in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals within thirty (30) days.
The Clerk is directed to prepare ...