IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION REGINALD MIDDLEBROOKS, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. v. 5:24-cv-00274-TES SWIFT TRANSPORTATION, Defendant.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS AS MOOT

Before the Court is Plaintiff Reginald Middlebrooks’ Motion for Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) [Doc. 6]. On August 20, 2024, the Court entered an Order [Doc. 3] granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed IFP [Doc. 2] and dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Clerk of Court entered Judgment [Doc. 62] the same day. On December 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed this Motion, seeking leave to appeal that decision without prepayment of the filing fee. [Doc. 6]. Applications to appeal IFP are governed by

and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24. Under § 1915(a)(1), district courts may “authorize . . . [an] appeal . . . without prepayment of fees or security therefore” if a party “submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such prisoner possesses1 that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.”

(a)(1). The affidavit must “state the nature of the . . . appeal and affiant’s belief that the person is entitled to

redress.”

Similarly, Rule 24(a) requires a party who desires to appeal IFP to “file a motion in the district court” and “attach an affidavit that: (A) shows . . . 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). However, “[a] party who was permitted to proceed [IFP] in the district-court action . . . may proceed on appeal [IFP] without further authorization, unless . . . the

district court . . . certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith or finds that the party is not otherwise entitled to proceed [IFP].” Id.; Fed R. App. P. 24(a)(3);

(a)(3).

Here, the Court permitted Plaintiff to proceed IFP. See [Doc. 3, p. 2]. And the Court has not found that Plaintiff’s appeal is not “in good faith” or that he is “not otherwise entitled to proceed [IFP].” See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3). Thus, Plaintiff may appeal IFP without the Court’s permission, and this Motion is moot.

1 “Despite the statute’s use of the phrase ‘prisoner possesses,’” the Eleventh Circuit has held that “the affidavit requirement applies to all persons requesting leave to proceed [in forma pauperis].” Martinez v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc.,

, 1306 n.1 (11th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis [Doc. 6] as moot. SO ORDERED, this 11th day of December, 2024.

S/ Tilman E. Self, III TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT