VanHook v. Nelms et al, No. 9:2012cv00060 - Document 23 (E.D. Tex. 2012)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. The 20 , 21 & 22 motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are DENIED. The Clerk shall clear any motions flags from docket entries #20 and 21 as well as 22. Signed by Magistrate Judge Judith K. Guthrie on 11/1/12. (ljw, )

Download PDF

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION THOMAS LOUIS VANHOOK, #1646479 § VS. § THOMAS H. NELMS, ET AL § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:12CV60 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING APPELLANT S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL Came on for consideration, Appellant Thomas Louis VanHook s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (docket entries #20, 21 & 22)1 from the dismissal of his civil rights lawsuit and entry of judgment against him. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) states that leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis shall be denied if the district court determines that the appeal is not taken in good faith (i.e., if the appeal fails to present a nonfrivolous issue). Coppedge v. U.S., 369 U.S. 438, 445, 82 S. Ct. 917, 8 L. Ed. 2d 21 (1962); United States v. Benitez, 405 Fed. Appx. 930, 930 (5th Cir. 2010) (per curiam). An action is frivolous where there is no arguable legal or factual basis for the claim. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 104 L. Ed. 2d 338 (1989); United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 630 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1103, 128 S. Ct. 872, 169 L. Ed. 2d 737 (2008). Similarly, under Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3)(A), the Appellant is ineligible for in forma pauperis status if the Court certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith. If the district court finds no legal points arguable on the merits, then an appeal is not taken in good faith. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983), reh g denied, 719 F.2d 787 5th Cir. 1983); see also Wai Leung Chu v. United States, 353 Fed. Appx. 952, 953 (5th Cir. 2009) (per curiam); Groden v. Kizzia, 354 Fed. Appx. 36, 36 (5th Cir. 2009) (per curiam); Walton 1 Docket entries #20 and 21 appear to be requests for forms rather than actual motions themselves. The Clerk will be directed to clear any motion flags from these docket entries along with that for docket entry #22. 1 v. Valdez, 340 Fed. Appx. 954, 955 (5th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). For the reasons stated in the Memorandum Opinion and Order of Dismissal (docket entry #16), the Court certifies that the Appellant s appeal is not taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3)(A); Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 n.21 (5th Cir. 1997) (to comply with Rule 24 and to inform the Court of Appeals of the reasons for its certification, a district court may incorporate by reference its order dismissing an appellant s claims). It is accordingly ORDERED that the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (docket entries #20, 21 & 22) is DENIED. The Clerk shall clear any motions flags from docket entries #20 and 21 as well as 22. Although this Court has certified that the appeal is not taken in good faith under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3)(A), the Appellant may challenge this finding pursuant to Baugh v. Taylor, by filing a separate motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal with the Clerk of Court, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, within 30 days of this order. Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202. The cost to file a motion to proceed on appeal with the Fifth Circuit is calculated below, and if the Appellant moves to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, the prison authorities will be directed to collect the fees as calculated in this order. Thomas Louis VanHook, #1646479, submitted an application with a trust fund account data sheet stating he received average deposits of $0.00 over the previous six months and carried an average balance of $0.06 over the previous six months in his trust account, which carries a current balance of $0.00. Therefore, he will not be assessed an initial partial filing fee. Nonetheless, that does not relieve the Plaintiff of the responsibility of paying the balance of the $455.00 filing fee or any partial fees connected therewith, unless and until the Court directs otherwise, regardless of the disposition of the appeal. The Appellant shall pay the $455.00 filing fee in periodic installments as funds become available. The Appellant is required to make payments of 20% of the preceding month s income 2 credited to his inmate trust fund account until Appellant has paid the total filing fee of $455.00. The agency having custody of the prisoner shall collect this amount from the trust fund account or institutional equivalent, when funds are available and when permitted by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2), and forward it to the clerk of the district court. If the Appellant moves to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, the clerk shall mail a copy of this order to the inmate accounting office or other person(s) or entity with responsibility for collecting and remitting to the district court interim filing payments on behalf of prisoners, as designated by the facility in which the prisoner is currently or subsequently confined. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 1 day of November, 2012. ____________________________ JUDITH K. GUTHRIE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.