Filed: Oct. 16, 2017
Latest Update: Oct. 16, 2017
Summary: ORDER MARC T. TREADWELL , District Judge . Waseem Daker has moved to intervene in this case. Doc. 85. United States Magistrate Judge Stephen Hyles recommends denying Daker's motion. Doc. 87. Daker has objected to the Recommendation. Doc. 91. 1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1), the Court has reviewed Daker's objection and has made a de novo determination of the portions of the Recommendation to which Daker objects. The Court has reviewed the Recommendation, and the Court accepts the findi
Summary: ORDER MARC T. TREADWELL , District Judge . Waseem Daker has moved to intervene in this case. Doc. 85. United States Magistrate Judge Stephen Hyles recommends denying Daker's motion. Doc. 87. Daker has objected to the Recommendation. Doc. 91. 1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1), the Court has reviewed Daker's objection and has made a de novo determination of the portions of the Recommendation to which Daker objects. The Court has reviewed the Recommendation, and the Court accepts the findin..
More
ORDER
MARC T. TREADWELL, District Judge.
Waseem Daker has moved to intervene in this case. Doc. 85. United States Magistrate Judge Stephen Hyles recommends denying Daker's motion. Doc. 87. Daker has objected to the Recommendation. Doc. 91.1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has reviewed Daker's objection and has made a de novo determination of the portions of the Recommendation to which Daker objects. The Court has reviewed the Recommendation, and the Court accepts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. The Recommendation (Doc. 87) is ADOPTED and made the Order of this Court.2 Accordingly, the motion to intervene (Doc. 85) is DENIED.
MOTIONS TO PROCEED IFP ON APPEAL
Because Daker has already filed a notice of appeal and motion to appeal IFP in at least two other cases where he attempted to intervene,3 the Court anticipates he may do so again. To proceed IFP on appeal, Daker must prove (1) he is financially unable to pay the filing fee and (2) that the appeal is taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915; Fed. R. App. P. 24. "`[G]ood faith' . . . must be judged by an objective standard." Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). The plaintiff demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a non-frivolous issue. Id. An issue "is frivolous if it is `without arguable merit either in law or fact.'" Napier v. Preslicka, 314 F.3d 528, 531 (11th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). "Arguable means capable of being convincingly argued." Sun v. Forrester, 939 F.2d 924, 925 (11th Cir. 1991) (quotation marks and citations omitted); Carroll v. Gross, 984 F.2d 392, 393 (11th Cir. 1993) ("[A] case is frivolous . . . when it appears the plaintiff `has little or no chance of success.'" (citations omitted)). "In deciding whether an [in forma pauperis] appeal is frivolous, a district court determines whether there is `a factual and legal basis, of constitutional dimension, for the asserted wrong, however inartfully pleaded.'" Sun, 939 F.2d at 925 (citations omitted). In this case, there are no non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal, and thus any appeal would not be taken in good faith. Accordingly, any motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
