Filed: Feb. 27, 2020
Latest Update: Feb. 27, 2020
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER STACI M. YANDLE , District Judge . Plaintiff Peter Gakuba, an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections ("IDOC"), filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that his constitutional rights were violated while he was incarcerated at Robinson Correctional Center ("Robinson"). Defendant moved for sanctions, asserting that Plaintiff had repeatedly failed to provide responses to written discovery, failed to comply with court orders, and r
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER STACI M. YANDLE , District Judge . Plaintiff Peter Gakuba, an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections ("IDOC"), filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that his constitutional rights were violated while he was incarcerated at Robinson Correctional Center ("Robinson"). Defendant moved for sanctions, asserting that Plaintiff had repeatedly failed to provide responses to written discovery, failed to comply with court orders, and re..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
STACI M. YANDLE, District Judge.
Plaintiff Peter Gakuba, an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections ("IDOC"), filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that his constitutional rights were violated while he was incarcerated at Robinson Correctional Center ("Robinson"). Defendant moved for sanctions, asserting that Plaintiff had repeatedly failed to provide responses to written discovery, failed to comply with court orders, and refused to take his properly noticed deposition. On August 8, 2019, the Court ordered Plaintiff to reimburse Counsel for Defendant the costs of the court reporter appearance in the amount of $264.50 (Doc. 138). Plaintiff was warned that failure to comply would result in this action being dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff failed to comply with the sanction order and this action was dismissed with prejudice (see Doc. 141). Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal and moves to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis ("IFP") (Doc. 153). For the following reasons, the Motion is DENIED.
A federal court may permit a party to proceed on appeal without full pre-payment of fees provided the party is indigent and the appeal is taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) & (3); FED. R. APP. P. 24(a)(3)(A). An appeal is taken in "good faith" if it seeks review of any issue that is not clearly frivolous; in other words, that a reasonable person could suppose it to have at least some legal merit. Lee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025, 1026 (7th Cir. 2000).
Here, Plaintiff's appeal is frivolous. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 permits dismissal of a case when the court finds "willfulness, bad faith or fault on the part of the defaulting party." Brown v. Columbia Sussex Corp., 664 F.3d 182, 190 (7th Cir. 2011). Plaintiff has not set forth an arguable basis in either law or fact for his appeal and there is nothing indicating that his appeal has any legal merit. As such, Plaintiff's appeal is not taken in good faith, and his request to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
