Myers v. St. George Police Department

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH NATHAN MYERS, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO Plaintiff, PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS v. Case No. 4:20-cv-00113-DN BENJAMIN TUFUGA; TRAVIS WILLINGER; JUSTIN GRAY; and SEAN District Judge David Nuffer SPARKS, Defendants. Plaintiff seeks leave to appeal in forma pauperis1 the Memorandum Decision and Order2 and Judgment3 entered on March 11, 2022. “An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.”4 “The Supreme Court . . . has held that an appeal is taken under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 in objective good faith when it presents ‘any issue not frivolous.’”5 “[T]he points on which the appeal is taken [must be] reasonably arguable.”6 This case was marred by Plaintiff’s multiple failures to comply with deadlines; his failures to respond to the motions that lead to the dismissal of his claims; his arguments which 1 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“Motion”), docket no. 84, filed under seal Apr. 12, 2022; Notice of Appeal, docket no. 81, filed Apr. 5, 2022. 2 Memorandum Decision and Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (“Memorandum Decision and Order”), docket no. 79, filed Mar. 11, 2022. 3 Judgment in a Civil Case (“Judgment”), docket no. 80, filed Mar. 11, 2022. [4] 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(3). 5 Menefee v. Werholtz, 368 Fed. App’x 879, 884 (10th Cir. 2010) (quoting Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962)). 6 Sejeck v. Singer Mfg. Co., 113 F. Supp. 281, 282 (D. N.J. 1953). made no sense when he did make filings; and his failure to challenge the undisputed material facts in summary judgment which showed that the defendant officers had a legitimate basis for the stopping and the searching Plaintiff’s vehicle. The defendant officers undisputedly did not violate Plaintiff's constitutional rights and are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s claims.’ Plaintiff cannot “show the existence of a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts in support of the issues [he would] raise[] on appeal.”* It cannot be said that there is any merit or that Plaintiff's appeal is taken in objective good faith. The issues are not reasonably arguable. Therefore, it is certified that Plaintiffs appeal is not taken in good faith. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion? is DENIED. Signed April 20, 2022. BY THE COURT Dhl) United States District Judge 7 Memorandum Decision and Order at 10-21. 8 Rolland v. Primesource Staffing, LLC, 497 F.3d 1077, 1079 (10th Cir. 2007). ° Docket no. 84, filed under seal Apr. 12, 2022.