Williamwest v. Richardson et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DODIYI WILLIAMWEST 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 21-800
SHERRY RICHARDSON, ET AL. 	SECTION “R” (3)
ORDER AND REASONS
On April 5, 2023, the Court issued judgment against pro se plaintiff
Dodiyi Williamwest. 1 Williamwest then filed a notice of appeal and a motion
to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal with the Fifth Circuit. 2 	This Court
found that Williamwest’s appeal was not taken in good faith and denied the
motion. 	Williamwest appealed the in forma pauperis decision and the
judgment to the Fifth Circuit, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed this Court except
as to the dismissal of two defendants because the Court did not explicitly set
aside the Clerk’s entry of default. 3 This Court then vacated the entry of
default against the two remaining defendants and dismissed the claims
against them without prejudice for improper service. 4
1 	R. Doc. 135.
2 	R. Doc. 144; Williamwest v. Richardson, 5th Cir. No. 23-30264, R.
Doc. 77-2.
3 	R. Doc. 113-2, at 3.
4 	R. Doc. 160.
Case 2:21-cv-00800-SSV-MBN Document 175 Filed 12/10/25 Page 1 of 4

2
Subsequently, Williamwest moved to consolidate various unrelated
federal and state criminal and civil cases, and to annul the orders entered by
this 	Court 	and 	the 	Fifth 	Circuit. 5 	This 	Court 	denied 	that 	motion. 6
Williamwest then filed a notice of appeal as to that order. 7
Williamwest now seeks leave to appeal in forma pauperis. A claimant
may 	proceed 	with 	an 	appeal 	in 	forma 	pauperis 	if 	he 	meets 	three
requirements. First, the claimant must submit “an affidavit that includes a
statement . . . that [he] is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.”
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). 	Based on this information, the district court must
determine whether the costs of appeal would cause an undue financial
hardship. See Prows v. Kastner, 842 F.2d 138, 140 (5th Cir. 1998). Second,
the claimant’s affidavit must “state[] the issues that the party intends to
present 	on 	appeal.” 	Fed. 	R. 	App. 	P. 	24(a)(1)(C); 	accord 	28 	U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(1) (“Such affidavit shall state the nature of the . . . appeal and
affiant’s belief that the person is entitled to redress.”). Third, the claimant’s
appeal must be “taken in good faith.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P.
24(a)(4)(B). 	“Good faith is demonstrated when a party seeks appellate
5 	R. Doc. 157.
6 	R. Doc. 160. Williamwest then moved for a “full and complete written
opinion,” R. Doc. 169, which this Court denied. R. Doc. 170.
7 	R. Doc. 168.
Case 2:21-cv-00800-SSV-MBN Document 175 Filed 12/10/25 Page 2 of 4

3
review of any issue ‘not frivolous.’” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th
Cir. 1983) (citing Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962)).
Good faith “does not require that probable success be shown,” but rather “is
limited to whether the appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits
(and therefore not frivolous).” United States v. Arroyo-Jurado, 477 F. App’x
150, 151 (5th Cir. 2012). “A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis
either in law or in fact.” Kingery v. Hale, 73 F. App’x 755, 755 (5th Cir. 2003).
While Williamwest’s motion8 suggests that the costs of appeal would
cause him financial hardship, his motion must nonetheless be denied
because the argument that he intends to raise on appeal does not have an
arguable basis either in law or in fact and is therefore frivolous. 	Plaintiff
states that his issue on appeal is that “the orders and judgments are contrary
to the law and evidence, with a big question as to jurisdiction.” 9
Williamwest’s claim is conclusory and fails to identify any defect
rendering the judgment contrary to the law and evidence. 	See Chalmers v.
Ridge, 100 F. App’x 961, 963 (5th Cir. 2004) (affirming district court’s
finding that appeal was not taken in good faith and noting “[a]lthough we
apply less stringent standards to parties proceeding pro se[,] . . . pro se
8 	R. Doc. 174.
9 	R. Doc. 168.
Case 2:21-cv-00800-SSV-MBN Document 175 Filed 12/10/25 Page 3 of 4

4
parties 	must 	still 	brief 	the 	issues 	and 	reasonably 	comply 	with 	the
requirements of Fed. R. [App.] P. 28”); see also Spearman v. Collins, 500 F.
App’x 742, 744 (10th Cir. 2012) (finding appeal was not taken in good faith
when the appellant “ma[de] only conclusory, vague and unsubstantiated”
assignments of error). The Court finds that Williamwest has failed to identify
a nonfrivolous issue for appeal, and that his appeal is not in good faith.
Accordingly, 	Williamwest’s 	motion 	for 	leave 	to 	appeal 	in 	forma
pauperis is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of December, 2025.
_____________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10th
Case 2:21-cv-00800-SSV-MBN Document 175 Filed 12/10/25 Page 4 of 4