United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
HARRISON A. PARFAIT, JR.
TERREBONNE PARISH CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT
ORDER AND REASONS
S. VANCE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is plaintiff Harrison A. Parfait, Jr.'s motion
for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Because Parfait
does not state the basis for his appeal, the Court denies the
November 23, 2016, Parfait filed a complaint against
defendant Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that defendant refused to grant
plaintiff access to a CPAP machine to treat his sleep apnea
in violation of his civil rights. On April 4, 2017, the Court
dismissed Parfait's complaint without prejudice for
failure to state a claim. Parfait then filed a motion to amend
his complaint on June 21, 2018, which the Court denied
because a post-judgment amendment was not permissible in
plaintiff's circumstances. On August 22, 2018, Parfait filed
a notice of appeal,  for which he seeks to proceed in forma
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 must provide the court
with an affidavit that “states 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 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 Fed.Appx. 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
Fed.Appx. 755 (5th Cir. 2003) (citing Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31-33 (1992)).
motion to proceed in forma pauperis suggests that he
is unable to pay fees related to his appeal. The motion and
supporting documentation indicate that Parfait's current
inmate balance is $0.00 and that he has no other
court nevertheless denies the motion because Parfait has not
indicated which issues he intends to pursue on
appeal. A litigant who wishes to proceed in
forma pauperis in the Court of Appeals is required to
provide the district court with an affidavit that
“states 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). Without a statement of the
issues that Parfait intends to pursue on appeal, the Court
cannot determine whether his appeal is taken in good faith.
See, e.g., Reeder v. U.S., No. 07-45, 2012
WL 965997, at *2 (E.D. La. Mar. 21, 2012); Smith v.
School Bd. of Brevard Cty, No. 09-2033, 2010 WL 2026071,
at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 20, 2010); United States v. One 2000
Land Rover, No. 07-382, 2008 WL 4809440, at *2 (S.D.
Ala. Oct. 24, 2008). A litigant who fails to present
arguments for appeal is considered to have abandoned those
arguments. McQueen v. Evans, 1995 WL 17797616, at *2
(5th Cir. Oct. 11, 1995) (citing Van Cleave v. United
States, 854 F.2d 82, 84-85 (5th Cir. 1988)). Parfait has
failed to comply with the requirements for a motion to
proceed in forma pauperis, and the Court thus deems
him to have abandoned those arguments.
foregoing reasons, petitioner's motion for leave to
appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED.