IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION JAMES L. ROBINSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 1:19-CV-39-WKW ) [WO] JOHN HAMM, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER Before the court is Plaintiff’s notice of appeal, which contains a motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis and a motion for a certificate of appealability. (Doc. # 136.) “An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.”

(a)(3). In determining good faith, the court must use an objective standard, such as whether the appeal is “frivolous,” Coppedge v. United States,

(1962), or “has no substantive merit,” United States v. Bottoson,

(5th Cir. Unit B May 1981) (per curiam). For the reasons explained in the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 130), which was adopted by the court (Doc # 132), the court is of the opinion that Plaintiff’s appeal is without a legal or factual basis and, therefore, is frivolous and not taken in good faith. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (Doc. # 136) is DENIED. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff is required, pursuant to

, to pay the requisite $505.00 fee for filing his notice of appeal.

It is further ORDERED that, because a certificate of appealability is not required to appeal a final judgment in a

action, Plaintiff’s motion for a certificate of appealability (Doc. # 136) is DENIED as moot.

DONE this 24th day of February, 2022. /s/ W. Keith Watkins UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE