Opinion
No. 1:00cv436
June 20, 2002
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This was an employment action brought pro so by a former employee of the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Battle Creek, Michigan. Plaintiff brought this action to contest her discharge from employment, which followed her conviction in this court for social security fraud in August of 1996. By opinion and judgment entered March 25, 2002, the court dismissed plaintiffs claim for monetary damages on a breach of contract theory for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and granted summary judgment for defendant on plaintiffs remaining claims. On April 2, 2002, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal and a financial affidavit. The court concludes that plaintiff is seeking leave to appeal in forma pauperis.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) provides that an appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis "if the trial court certifies in writing that the appeal is not taken in good faith." Where, as here, the party seeking to appeal in forma pauperis is not a prisoner, the court must screen the proposed appeal to determine whether it meets the standard of this section. See Callihan v. Schneider, 178 F.3d 800, 803 (6th Cir. 1999); Floyd v. United States Postal Serv., 105 F.3d 274, 277 (6th Cir. 1997); see also McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 610 (6th Cir. 1997). Section 1915(a)(3) establishes an objective standard. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962); Wilson v. Todd, 178 F. Supp.2d 925, 929 (W.D. Tenn. 2001); Anderson v. Sundquist, 1 F. Supp.2d 828, 835 (W.D. Tenn. 1998); Brown v. Carpenter, 889 F. Supp. 1028. 1034 (W.D. Tenn. 1995); Nabkey v. Gibson, 923 F. Supp. 117, 122 (W.D. Mich. 1990). In order to meet the good-faith standard, an appellant must show that the appeal presents a substantial question that is not frivolous. Anderson, 1 F. Supp.2d at 835; Ishaaq v. Compton, 900 F. Supp. 935, 945 (W.D. Tenn. 1995); Oswald v. Graves, 819 F. Supp. 680, 685 (E.D. Mich. 1993). Section 1915(a)(1) requires an affidavit by plaintiff identifying the "nature" of her appeal, including some specificity identifying the basis of the appeal, supporting her belief that she is a "person entitled to redress." 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(1); see White v. Keyl, No. 01-6381, 2002 WL 193926, at *1 (10th Cir. Feb. 8, 2002). This requirement is designed to assist courts in the process of determining whether an appeal is taken in good faith. See, e.g., Harlem River Consumers Co-Op, Inc. v. Associated Growers of Harlem, Inc., 71 F.R.D. 93, 97 (S.D.N.Y. 1976) (appeal could not be certified as being taken in good faith where plaintiff's submissions failed to specify "what specific questions [were] sufficient to warrant the relief sought in connection with this appeal."); Dupont v. Southern Pac. Co., 231 F. Supp. 601, 602-03 (W.D. La. 1964) ("[A] person desiring to appeal in forma pauperis must state in the affidavit the grounds relied upon for his appeal in order that the district court may make the necessary determinations."); accord Douglas v. Green, 327 F.2d 661, 662 (6th Cir. 1964) (denying appellant's motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the absence of a "specific statement" regarding the basis for the appeal).
In the present case, plaintiff has not provided the court with an affidavit or other statement identifying the nature of her appeal and specifying the questions that she believes are sufficient to warrant appellate review. Upon independent review, the court discerns no good-faith basis for an appeal. Accordingly, plaintiff will be denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis.
ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS
In accordance with the memorandum opinion entered this date:
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff he and hereby is DENIED leave to appeal in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(3).