HUMANITARIAN v. LEARY et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION
HUMANITARIAN, 	:
:
Plaintiff, 	:
:
v. 	: 	CASE NO.: 7:24-CV-32 (LAG)
:
PETER D LEARY, et al., 	:
:
Defendants. 	:
:
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Humanitarian’s Motion for Leave to Appeal In Forma
Pauperis (IFP). (Doc. 35).1 Applications to appeal IFP are governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915
and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24. Rule 24 provides that “a party to a district-
court action who desires to appeal in forma pauperis must file a motion in the district court.
Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1). In addition to showing financial eligibility, the party must also
claim an “entitlement to redress” and state the issues that the party intends to present on
appeal. Id. An appeal, however, “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 an issue that is not frivolous judged
by an objective standard. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). An issue
is frivolous when it appears that the legal theories are “indisputably meritless.” Carroll v.
Gross, 984 F.2d 392, 393 (11th Cir. 1993) (per curiam). A motion to proceed IFP on appeal
must include an affidavit setting forth the issues the litigant intends to raise so that the court
1 	Although Plaintiff’s Motion is styled as, and prepared on the form, Application to Proceed in
District Court Without Preparing Fees or Costs, the Court construes the filing as a Motion for Leave to
Appeal IFP because Plaintiff already has been denied IFP status in this Court; and Plaintiff has filed a
Notice of Appeal. Plaintiff has filed identical Motions in all three of his recent cases where the Court denied
his Motion to Vacate. Humanitarian v. Treadwell et al., No. 7:24-CV-38 (LAG), (Doc. 34) (M.D. Ga.
March 11, 2026); Humanitarian v. Baun et al., No. 7:24-CV-48 (LAG), (Doc. 21) (M.D. Ga. March 11,
2026).
Case 7:24-cv-00032-LAG Document 37 Filed 04/14/26 Page 1 of 2

2
can determine whether the appeal is brought in good faith or is frivolous. See Coppedge v.
United States, 369 U.S. at 443–44 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)); see also Fed. R. App. P.
24(a)(1)(C).
Plaintiff did not set forth any legal basis for his appeal; therefore, he has not
demonstrated that his appeal is brought in good faith. (See Doc. 35). Judgment was entered
in this matter on December 23, 2024, after Plaintiff failed to pay the filing fee within thirty
days of the Court’s Order denying his Motion for IFP to proceed in this Court. (Doc. 22;
see Doc. 17). Subsequently, concluding that Plaintiff failed to identify any conduct that
would constitute fraud on the court, this Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate that
Order. (Doc. 28). In the instant Motion, Plaintiff fails to articulate any factual issue or legal
theory to support his appeal. Thus, the Court is unable to determine whether the appeal is
brought in good faith or is frivolous.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Appeal IFP (Doc. 35) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 14th day of April, 2026.
/s/ Leslie A. Gardner
LESLIE A. GARDNER, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 7:24-cv-00032-LAG Document 37 Filed 04/14/26 Page 2 of 2