United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Valdosta Division
LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE.
Paul Keith has moved to appeal in forma pauperis.
Mot. for Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis, ECF No.
42. After reviewing the record, the Court enters the
seeks to appeal the judgment in favor of Defendants entered
on January 4, 2019. Order Adopting R. & R., ECF No. 37;
J., ECF No. 38. 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,
1(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
Similarly, 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
submitted an updated affidavit and certified copy of his
trust fund account statement in his motion for leave to
appeal in forma pauperis. See Mot. for
Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis, ECF No. 42. These
documents demonstrate that Plaintiff is unable to pay the
$505 appellate filing fee. See id.
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, Plaintiff asserted that he was subjected to cruel and
unusual conditions of confinement when he was made to live in
a cell with a non-flushing toilet, such that urine and feces
were always present in the cell. Compl., ECF No. 1; Amended
Compl., ECF No. 18. This Court dismissed the conditions of
confinement claim based on Plaintiff's failure to exhaust