United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
RUSSELL G. VINEYARD, Magistrate Judge.
Defendant Enkeleon Manati ("defendant"), through his retained counsel, has filed a "Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis for Appeal, " [Doc. 72], which has been referred to the undersigned, see [Doc. 79]. For the reasons that follow, it is RECOMMENDED that the motion be DENIED.
Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that "a party to a district-court action who desires to appeal in forma pauperis must file a motion in the district court" and attach an affidavit that:
(A) shows in the detail prescribed by Form 4 of the Appendix of Forms the party's inability to pay or to give security of fees and costs;
(B) claims an entitlement to redress; and
(C) states the issues that the party intends to present on appeal.
Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1). Defendant's motion to proceed in forma pauperis for appeal does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 24 as the affidavit attached to the motion does not provide all the details prescribed by Form 4 of the Appendix of Forms. See [Doc. 72-1]. Most significantly, the affidavit does not state the issues that defendant intends to present on appeal. See [id.]. Therefore, the Court cannot find that the appeal is taken in good faith. Moreover, although defendant has provided some information regarding his financial circumstances, he has not provided the level of detail prescribed by Form 4 of the Appendix of Forms.
Finally, even considering the financial information that defendant has provided, it is not apparent that he is entitled to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal as the affidavit indicates that he has $9, 500.00 in cash on hand or money in savings or checking accounts and he has no known living expenses since he is incarcerated. See United States v. Slater, 96 F. R. D. 53, 54 (D. Del. 1982) (citations omitted) ("The mere assertion of poverty... does not serve as a substitute for indigency" and the Court "must be careful to insure the availability of the federal judicial system to truly indigent persons"). Because defendant has not satisfied the requirements of Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, he has not shown that he is entitled to proceed in ...