United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Macon Division
ASHLEY ROYAL, SENIOR JUDGE
pending before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Waseem
Daker's motion for leave to appeal in forma
pauperis (ECF No. 20) from the Court's July 18, 2017
Order dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice.
For the following reasons, the Court DENIES
Plaintiff's motion to appeal in forma pauperis.
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a court may authorize an
appeal of a civil action or proceeding without prepayment of
fees or security therefor if the putative appellant has filed
“an affidavit that includes a statement of all
assets” and “state[s] the nature of the . . .
appeal and [the] affiant's belief that the person is
entitled to redress.” If the trial court certifies in
writing that the appeal is not taken in good faith, however,
such appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). “‘[G]ood faith' . . .
must be judged by an objective standard.” Coppedge
v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). The
plaintiff demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a
non-frivolous issue. Id.; see also Morris v.
Ross, 663 F.2d 1032, 1033 (11th Cir. 1981). An issue
“is frivolous if it is ‘without arguable merit
either in law or fact.'” Napier v.
Preslicka, 314 F.3d 528, 531 (11th Cir. 2002).
“Arguable means being capable of being convincingly
argued.” Sun v. Forrester, 939 F.2d 924, 925
(11th Cir. 1991) (per curiam) (quotation marks and citations
omitted); Carroll v. Gross, 984 F.2d 392, 393 (11th
Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (“[A] case is frivolous . . .
when it appears the plaintiff ‘has little or no chance
of success.'”) (citations omitted). “In
deciding whether an [in forma pauperis] appeal is frivolous,
a district court determines whether there is ‘a factual
and legal basis, of constitutional dimension, for the
asserted wrong, however inartfully pleaded.'”
Sun, 939 F.2d at 925 (citations omitted).
Plaintiff has not submitted a statement of the issues he
intends to appeal in his motion to proceed in forma
pauperis, as is required under Fed. R. App. P.
24(a)(1)(C), this Court's independent review of the
issues addressed in the Court's July 18, 2017 Order
demonstrates that Plaintiff's appeal is frivolous.
See Hyche v. Christensen, 170 F.3d 769, 771 (7th
Cir. 1999), overruled on other grounds by Lee v.
Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025 (7th Cir. 2000) (explaining that
the arguments to be advanced on appeal are often obvious and
decisions regarding good faith can be made by looking at the
“reasoning in the ruling sought to be appealed”
instead of requiring a statement from the plaintiff). The
appeal, therefore, is not brought in good faith. Plaintiff
has raised no issues with arguable merit.
Plaintiff's application to appeal in forma
pauperis (ECF No. 20) is DENIED. If
Plaintiff wishes to proceed with his appeal, he must pay the
entire $505 appellate filing fee. Because Plaintiff has
stated that he cannot pay the fee immediately, he must pay
using the partial payment plan described under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(b). Pursuant to section 1915(b), the prison
account custodian where Plaintiff is confined shall cause to
be remitted to the Clerk of this Court monthly payments of
20% of the preceding month's income credited to
Plaintiff's account (to the extent the account balance
exceeds $10) until the $505 appellate filing fee has been
paid in full. Checks should be made payable to “Clerk,
U.S. District Court.” The Clerk of Court is
DIRECTED to send a copy of this Order to the
custodian of the prison in which Plaintiff is incarcerated.
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24
similarly requires a party seeking leave to appeal in
forma pauperis to file a motion and affidavit that
establishes the party's inability to pay fees and costs,
the party's belief that he is entitled to redress, and a
statement of the issues which the party intends to present on
appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a).
 The Court notes that the “three
strikes” provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act
(“PLRA”) also prohibits a prisoner from
“appeal[ing] a judgment in a civil action or
proceeding” in forma pauperis
if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions,
while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an
action or appeal in a court of the United States that was
dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,
unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff has had more than
three of his cases or appeals dismissed on the
statutorily-enumerated grounds prior to filing his notice of
appeal in this case: Daker v. Mokwa, Order Denying
Leave to Proceed IFP, ECF No. 2 in Case No.
2:14-cv-00395-UA-MRW (C.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2014) (denying leave
to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing case
after conducting screening under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B) and finding claims were frivolous and failed to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted); Daker v.
Warren, Order Dismissing Appeal, Case No. 13-11630 (11th
Cir. Mar. 4, 2014) (three-judge panel dismissal of appeal on
grounds that appeal was frivolous); Order Dismissing Appeal,
Daker v. Warden, Case No. 15-13148 (11th Cir. May
26, 2016) (three-judge panel dismissing appeal as frivolous);
Order Dismissing Appeal, Daker v. Commissioner, Case
No. 15-11266 (11th Cir. Oct. 7, 2016) (three-judge panel
dismissing appeal as frivolous); Order Dismissing Appeal,
Daker v. Ferrero, Case No. 15-13176 (11th Cir. Nov.
3, 2016) (three-judge panel dismissing appeal as frivolous);
Order Dismissing Appeal, Daker v. Governor, Case No.
15-13179 (11th Cir. Dec. 19, 2016) (three-judge panel
dismissing appeal as frivolous). Plaintiff has therefore
accrued more than three “strikes” for purposes of
§ 1915(g), and he is thus precluded from proceeding