IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, EASTERN DIVISION

BRIAN HENRY RITTER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. v. ) 3:23cv485-MHT ) (WO) STEVEN T. SPEAKMAN, Judge, ) et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER This cause is now before the court on plaintiff's “Motion to Appeal” (Doc. 7), which the court construes as both a notice of appeal and a motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis.

(a)(3) provides that "an appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith." See also F.R.A.P. 24(a)(3)(A) (“A party who was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in the district-court action ... may proceed on appeal in forma pauperis without further authorization, unless ... the district court--before or after the notice of appeal is filed--certifies that the appeal is not taken

in good faith”). In making this determination as to good faith, a 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 15, 1981) (per curiam); see also Rudolph v. Allen,

(11th Cir. 1982) (per curiam); Morris v. Ross,

(11th Cir. 1981). Applying this standard, this court is of the opinion, for the reasons stated in the recommendation of the magistrate judge, that the

plaintiff's appeal is without a legal or factual basis and, accordingly, is frivolous and not taken in good faith. See, e.g., Rudolph v.

Brown v. Pena,

(S.D. Fla. 1977), aff'd without

opinion,

(5th Cir. 1979). *** Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the plaintiff's 2 motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is denied; and that the appeal in this cause is certified,

pursuant to

(a), as not taken in good faith. DONE, this the 17th day of October, 2023. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3