Filed: Sep. 20, 2017
Latest Update: Sep. 20, 2017
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THOMAS B. SMITH , Magistrate Judge . This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on appeal (Doc. 59). Defendant Synergy Health AST, LLC has filed a response in opposition to the motion (Doc. 60). For the following reasons I recommend that the motion be denied. After the issues in this commercial dispute were fully briefed, the Court found that Defendant was entitled to summary judgment on the merits and the Clerk entere
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THOMAS B. SMITH , Magistrate Judge . This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on appeal (Doc. 59). Defendant Synergy Health AST, LLC has filed a response in opposition to the motion (Doc. 60). For the following reasons I recommend that the motion be denied. After the issues in this commercial dispute were fully briefed, the Court found that Defendant was entitled to summary judgment on the merits and the Clerk entered..
More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
THOMAS B. SMITH, Magistrate Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on appeal (Doc. 59). Defendant Synergy Health AST, LLC has filed a response in opposition to the motion (Doc. 60). For the following reasons I recommend that the motion be denied.
After the issues in this commercial dispute were fully briefed, the Court found that Defendant was entitled to summary judgment on the merits and the Clerk entered judgment for Defendant on July 21, 2017 (Docs. 49-50). Plaintiff Central Florida Sterilization, LLC has filed a notice of appeal and the pending motion to appeal in forma pauperis (Docs. 57, 59). The motion to appeal in forma pauperis is supported by the affidavit of Plaintiff's owner and managing member, Wes Mathis, who states that he "is currently indigent and has no assets with which to pay attorney's fees or the costs of an appeal" (Doc. 59-1). Plaintiff has not supplied any information concerning its financial condition.
Federal courts may allow an individual to proceed in forma pauperis at the trial level or on appeal if that person declares in an affidavit that he "is unable to pay [filing] fees or give security therefor." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). However, "only natural persons — as opposed to business entities — can proceed in forma pauperis." SCLG-LLC v. Kuntz, Case No. 3:15-cv-156, 2015 WL 4550344, at *1 (S.D. Ohio. April 30, 2015) (The court denied the limited liability company's motion to proceed in forma pauperis with prejudice) (citing Rowland v. Cal. Men's Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 196 (1993) (The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the term "person" applied to artificial entities and held that "only a natural person may qualify for treatment in forma pauperis under § 1915.")); see also Decosey v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 6:14-cv-2038-Orl-41KRS, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179695, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 15, 2014) ("[A]rtificial entities, such as an LLC, may not appear in forma pauperis."). As a limited liability company, Plaintiff is not eligible to prosecute its appeal in forma pauperis.
Even if Plaintiff did qualify as a "person" for purposes of appealing in forma paupers, the motion would have to be denied because the Plaintiff has not provided evidence to establish that it, as opposed to Mathis, lacks the financial resources to pay for the appeal.
For these reasons, I respectfully recommend that the Court DENY Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
RESPECTFULLY RECOMMENDED.
