United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Brunswick Division
ORDER AND MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
BENJAMIN W. CHEESBRO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
filed this cause of action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and
has moved to proceed in forma pauperis. Docs. 1, 2.
Upon review, I DENY Plaintiff's Motion
to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. I
RECOMMEND the Court DISMISS
Plaintiff's Complaint, DIRECT the Clerk
of Court to CLOSE this case and enter the
appropriate judgment of dismissal, and DENY
Plaintiff in forma pauperis on appeal.
seeks to bring this action in forma pauperis. Under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), the Court may authorize the
filing of a civil lawsuit without the prepayment of fees if
the plaintiff submits an affidavit that includes a statement
of all of her assets and shows an inability to pay the filing
fee and also includes a statement of the nature of the action
which shows that she is entitled to redress. Even if the
plaintiff proves indigence, the Court must dismiss the action
if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii); Dingler v. Georgia, 725
Fed.Appx. 923, 927 (11th Cir. 2018) (Section 1915(e)(2)(B)
“plainly applies to anyone proceeding in forma
pauperis, prisoners and non-prisoners alike.”);
Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 113
n.19 (3d Cir. 2002) (Non-prisoner indigent plaintiffs are
“clearly within the scope of §
1915(e)(2)[.]”); Dutta-Roy v. Fain, No.
1:14-CV-280, 2014 WL 1795205, at *2 (N.D.Ga. May 5, 2014)
(frivolity review of indigent non-prisoner plaintiff's
reviewing a complaint on an application to proceed in
forma pauperis, the Court is guided by the instructions
for pleading contained in the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8 (“A pleading that states a
claim for relief must contain [among other things] . . . a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.”); Fed.R.Civ.P. 10
(requiring that claims be set forth in numbered paragraphs,
each limited to a single set of circumstances). Further, a
claim is frivolous under §1915(e)(2)(B)(i) “if it
is ‘without arguable merit either in law or
fact.'” Napier v. Preslicka, 314 F.3d 528,
531 (11th Cir. 2002) (quoting Bilal v. Driver, 251
F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2001)).
Plaintiff makes no factual allegations in her Complaint, yet
she requests $134.65 trillion in damages. Doc. 1 at 4. In
addition, although Plaintiff filed an affidavit indicating
she makes $11, 000 per year, she provides no other
information bearing on her capability of paying the
applicable filing fee. Plaintiff's Complaint is
frivolous, fails to state a claim, and is not made in accord
with basic pleading requirements. Thus, I
RECOMMEND the Court DISMISS
Leave to Appeal in Forma Pauperis
Court should also deny Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma
pauperis. Though Plaintiff has not yet filed a notice of
appeal, it is proper to address these issues in the
Court's order of dismissal. See Fed. R. App. P.
24(a)(3) (trial court may certify that appeal of party
proceeding in forma pauperis is not taken in good
faith “before or after the notice of appeal is
appeal cannot be taken in forma pauperis if the
trial court certifies that the appeal is not taken in good
faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3).
Good faith in this context must be judged by an objective
standard. Busch v. County of Volusia, 189 F.R.D.
687, 691 (M.D. Fla. 1999). A party does not proceed in good
faith when he seeks to advance a frivolous claim or argument.
See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445
(1962). A claim or argument is frivolous when it appears the
factual allegations are clearly baseless or the legal
theories are indisputably meritless. Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989); Carroll v.
Gross, 984 F.2d 392, 393 (11th Cir. 1993). An in
forma pauperis action is frivolous and not brought in
good faith if it is “without arguable merit either in
law or fact.” Napier v. Preslicka, 314 F.3d
528, 531 (11th Cir. 2002); see also Brown v. United
States, Nos. 407CV085, 403CR001, 2009 WL 307872, at *1-2
(S.D. Ga. Feb. 9, 2009).
on the above analysis of Plaintiff's action, there are no
non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal, and an appeal would
not be taken in good faith. Thus, the Court should
DENY Plaintiff in forma pauperis
status on appeal.
above-stated reasons, I RECOMMEND the Court
DISMISS this action and
DIRECT the Clerk of Court to enter the
appropriate judgment of dismissal and CLOSE
this case. I further RECOMMEND the Court
DENY Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma
pauperis on appeal. I DENY Plaintiff
in forma pauperis status in this Court.
Court ORDERS any party seeking to object to
this Report and Recommendation to file specific written
objections within 14 days of the date on which this Report
and Recommendation is entered. Any objections asserting that
the Magistrate Judge failed to address any contention raised
in the Complaint must also be included. Failure to do so will
bar any later challenge or review of the factual findings or
legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.
receipt of Objections meeting the specificity requirement set
out above, a United States District Judge will make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report, proposed
findings, or recommendation to which objection is made and
may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge.
Objections not meeting the specificity requirement set out
above will not be considered by a District Judge. A party may
not appeal a Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation
directly to the ...