DILLARD
v.
GEO CARE TREASURE COAST FORENSIC TREATMENT CENTER
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Plaintiff Kevin J. Dillard moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal in a civil action against Geo Care Treasure Coast Forensic Treatment Center. The district court denied the motion, finding that it failed to comply with Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 24(a)(1) and that the appeal was not taken in good faith.
The court denied Dillard's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis because the motion failed to comply with Rule 24(a)(1) by not including a proper affidavit claiming entitlement to redress and stating the issues for appeal, and because the appeal was not taken in good faith as it had little or no chance of success.
[1] A motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal must satisfy the requirements of Rule 24(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, including stating the issues i…
[2] A motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal must include an affidavit demonstrating an entitlement to redress.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDillard filed a motion seeking to appeal in forma pauperis but did not attach a proper affidavit as required by the rules. The motion referenced a Jan…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Frivolous Appeal Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
Civil Action No. 23-22423-Civ-Scola
Order Denying Motion for Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis
Plaintiff Kevin J. Dillard has moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. (Pl.'s Mot., ECF No. 27.) The Court denies the motion for two reasons: (1) the motion does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 24(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, and (2) Dillard's appeal is not taken in good faith. Either of these reasons is sufficient on its own to deny the motion.
Rule 24(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that a party filing a motion in district court seeking to appeal in forma pauperis must attach an affidavit to the motion that, among other things, “claims an entitlement to redress” and “states the issues that the party intends to present on appeal.” Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(B)−(C). Dillard's motion fails to do either, and instead simply identifies (1) a paperless order the Court entered on January 16, 2024, striking an improper “notice” Dillard had filed (long after judgment in his case had been entered) and (2) a motion for an injunction that Dillard says he filed in December 2023 (but which does not appear on the Court's docket). This does not provide any information about whether Dillard claims an entitlement to redress or what particular issues he intends to present on appeal.
Moreover, Dillard has not provided any financial information from which the Court could determine that he is unable to pay the filing fee. And, in the margins of his filing, Dillard asks for an extension of time submit his filing fee, further undercutting his inability to pay it.
Lastly, the Court finds Dillard's motion is not taken in good faith. “An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). “A party demonstrates good faith by seeking appellate review of any issue that is not frivolous when examined under an objective standard.” Ghee v. Retailers National Bank, 271 F. App’x 858, 859 (11th Cir. 2008). An appeal filed in forma pauperis is frivolous “when it appears the plaintiff has little or no chance of success,” meaning that the “factual allegations are clearly baseless or that the legal theories are indisputably meritless.” Carroll v. Gross, 984 F. 2d 392, 393 (11th Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). Dillard's appeal appears to have little or no chance of success: he does not even suggest, never mind actually set forth, a legal theory that appears to have any merit or any material factual allegations that would support an appeal.
For the reasons set forth above, the Court denies Dillard's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (ECF No. 27).
Done and ordered, in Miami, Florida, on February 27, 2024
Robert N. Scola, Jr. United States District Judge
Copy via U.S. mail to: Kevin J. Dillard 1764 NW 48th Street Miami, FL 33142