IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

DEMERICK LEE KILLION, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. v. 1:23-cv-00232-SDG AMAZON ATL 6, Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

This case is before the Court on Plaintiff Demerick Lee Killion’s application to appeal in forma pauperis [ECF 16]. For the following reasons, Killion’s application is DENIED. I. Background This case involves an incident at an Amazon facility in East Point, Georgia that took place on July 16, 2022.1 Killion alleges that he was assaulted by an unnamed person early that morning but did not retaliate.2 However, Killion’s employment at Amazon was terminated a few days later, and Killion claims that Amazon gave a false reason for his termination.3 Based on these allegations, Killion brings claims for wrongful termination and defamation of character.4

1 ECF 4, ¶ 14. 2 Id. 3 Id. 4 Id. ¶ 13. Killion initially filed a charge with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on October 17, 2022.5 The EEOC concluded that there was no

evidence that Killion was discriminated against and issued a right to sue letter.6 Killion filed his original complaint and an application for leave to proceed IFP in this Court on January 17, 2023.7 U.S. Magistrate Judge Catherine M. Salinas

granted Killion’s application but identified several deficiencies in his original complaint and offered him the opportunity to amend his pleading.8 Killion filed an amended complaint on February 23.9 Judge Salinas conducted a frivolity review of the amended complaint and issued a Final Report and Recommendation

(R&R) that the amended complaint be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.10 Killion objected to the R&R, but undersigned overruled Killion’s objections and adopted the R&R, and the case was dismissed without prejudice.11

Now, Killion seeks permission to appeal IFP.12

5 Id. at 14. 6 Id. The right to sue letter included with Killion’s amended complaint is undated. 7 ECF 1. 8 ECF 2. 9 ECF 4. 10 ECF 5. 11 ECFs 7, 12. 12 ECF 16. II. Applicable Legal Standards Applications to appeal IFP are governed by

and Federal

Rule of Appellate Procedure 24. Under both the statute and the rule, a party must show an inability to pay and the basis of the appeal. The appeal must also be brought in good faith—an objective standard that is met when a party seeks review of any issue that is not frivolous. Coppedge v. United States,

(1962). “A claim is frivolous if it is without arguable merit either in law or fact.” Bilal v. Driver,

(11th Cir. 2001). “Arguable means capable of being convincingly argued.” Sun v. Forrester,

(11th Cir. 1991)

(per curiam) (citations omitted). A claim that is arguable, “but ultimately will be unsuccessful, . . . should survive frivolity review.” Cofield v. Ala. Pub. Serv. Comm’n,

, 515 (11th Cir. 1991). III. Discussion

Killion’s affidavit shows his inability to pay the appellate filing fee.13 However, the Court concludes that Killion’s proffered basis for appeal is frivolous. Killion argues that if he were a white male, Amazon’s human resources department would have handled his alleged assault differently, and there is video

and witness evidence to substantiate his claim.14 Even assuming for the sake of

13 Id. 14 ECF 16, ¶ 1. argument that this were true, Killion’s appeal does not address the critical issue identified in the R&R: Killion’s amended complaint does not state a claim under federal law or provide any other basis for the Court’s jurisdiction, and therefore the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over his claims.!5 Accordingly, the Court concludes that Killion’s appeal is not taken in good faith and does not survive frivolity review. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3)(A). IV. Conclusion Killion’s application to appeal in forma pauperis [ECF 16] is DENIED. Further requests to proceed in forma pauperis should be directed by motion to the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit within 30 days pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 24. SO ORDERED this 24th day of March, 2025.

United States District Judge

15 ECE 5.