United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Macon Division
ASHLEY ROYAL, SENIOR JUDGE.
Darnell Nolley has moved to appeal in forma
pauperis. Mot. & Aff. for Leave to Appeal In
Forma Pauperis, ECF No. 156. After reviewing the record,
the Court enters the following Order.
seeks to appeal the judgment in favor of Defendants entered
on September 22, 2017. See Notice of App., ECF No.
154. Applications to appeal in forma pauperis are
governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Fed. R. App. P. 24.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915,
(a)(1) [A]ny 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. . . .
(3) An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial
court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good
Fed. R. App. P. 24(a) provides:
(1) [A] party to a district-court action who desires to
appeal in forma pauperis must file a motion in the district
court. The party must attach an affidavit that:
(A) shows . . . the party's inability to pay or to give
security for fees and costs;
(B) claims an entitlement to redress; and
(C) states the issues that the party intends to present on
(2) If the district court denies the motion, it must state
its reasons in writing.
the Court must make two determinations when faced with an
application to proceed in forma pauperis. First, it
must determine whether the plaintiff is financially able to
pay the filing fee required for an appeal. Here, Plaintiff
has submitted a renewed affidavit for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, but he did not submit an updated
certified copy of his trust fund account statement because he
states that the business office at the prison has been
unresponsive to his request for a statement. See
Mot. & Aff. for Leave to Appeal In Forma
Pauperis, ECF No. 156. Regardless, Plaintiff's
affidavit, along with his previous filings, demonstrate that
he is unable to prepay the appellate filing fee.
the Court must determine if the plaintiff has satisfied the
good faith requirement. “‘[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. 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) (citations omitted).
“Arguable means capable of being convincingly
argued.” Sun v. Forrester, 939 F.2d 924, 925
(11th Cir. 1991) (quotation marks and citations omitted);
Carroll v. Gross, 984 F.2d 392, 393 (11th Cir. 1993)
(“[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).
action, this Court granted summary judgment to Defendants on
Plaintiff's due process claim. Order, Sept. 21, 2017, ECF
No. 142. Although Plaintiff has not submitted a statement of
the issues he intends to appeal, as is required by Fed. R.
App. P. 24(a)(1)(C), this Court's independent review of
the issues addressed in the September 21, 2017, Order
demonstrates that Plaintiff's appeal is frivolous. In
particular, Defendants were entitled to summary judgment
because the undisputed facts demonstrated that
Plaintiff's placement in administrative segregation did
not deprive him of a protected liberty interest. See
Turner v. Warden, GDCP, 650 F. App'x 695, 700-01
(11th Cir. 2016) (per curiam). Moreover, to the extent that
Plaintiff seeks to challenge on appeal the Court's
resolution of Plaintiff's non-dispositive motions, a