IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
April 10, 2012
BETTY D. COOK,
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, Chief Judge:
Pending before the Court is Cook's pro se motion for reduced fees or payment lienency [sic] (Doc. 104). Specifically, Cook requests that the payment for the trial transcript for appeal purposes be waived before production is commenced or completed or that a reduced payment be considered as she does not have the means to pay for the transcript up front. After reviewing this pleading, the Court construes this motion as one to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Based on the following, the Court denies the motion.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) provides that a federal district court may authorize an appeal without prepayment of fees if the person submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets he/she possesses and shows that he/she is unable to pay fees or give security for the appeal. The affidavit also must also state the nature of the appeal and the affiant's belief that he/she is entitled to redress. Except as stated in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3), a party to a district-court action who desires to appeal in forma pauperis must file a motion in the district court. The party must attach an affidavit that:
(A) shows in the detail prescribed by Form 4 of the Appendix of Forms, the party's inability to pay or to give security for fees and costs; (B) claims an entitlement to redress; and (C) states the issues that the party intends to present on appeal.
FED. R. APP. P. 24(a)(1). A party may not proceed in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that the appeal "is not taken in good faith." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3);FED. R. APP. P. 24(a).
Clearly, Cook's motion is insufficient. She has not provided any information that is required under Rule 24(a). Thus, the Court denies at this time Cook's motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
2012.04.10 14:58:36 -05'00'
David R. Herndon Chief Judge United States District Court
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.