Hunter Alexander v. John Does, I.R.S., U.S. Postal

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION HUNTER ALEXANDER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 1:26-cv-00525-JPH-MJD ) JOHN DOES, ) I.R.S., ) U.S. POSTAL, ) ) Defendants. ) ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO PROCEED ON APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND RENEWED MOTION FOR COUNSEL Plaintiff Hunter Alexander seeks leave to proceed on appeal without prepayment of the appellate fees of $605.00. But Mr. Alexander has struck out, meaning he has "on 3 or more occasions … brought an action or appeal … that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Mr. Alexander has been advised that he has struck out. See, e.g. Alexander et al. v. Does, 1:26-cv- 541-JRS-TAB (S.D. Ind. Mar. 26, 2026), dkt. 8 at 1-2 (listing Alexander v. Doe, 1:26-cv-00521-TWP-MG, Alexander v. Does, et al., 1:26-cv-00528-JMS-KMB, and Alexander v. Does, 1:26-cv-000540-JRO-CSW as strikes). Accordingly, he may not proceed on appeal in forma pauperis in this matter, and the motions, dkts. [16] and [17], are denied. Robinson v. Powell, 297 F.3d 540, 541 (7th Cir. 2002) (finding district court erred when it permitted plaintiff who had struck out to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis).

Further, the appeal is not brought in good faith. "An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). "Good faith" within the meaning of § 1915 is judged by an objective, not a subjective, standard. See Thomas v. Zatecky, 712 F.3d 1004, 1006 (7th Cir. 2013) (stating that bad faith is a phrase that is understood to mean objective frivolousness). At this time, there is no objectively reasonable argument Mr. Alexander could present to argue that the dismissal of this case was erroneous. The Court dismissed this action as frivolous and for failure to state a claim because Mr. Alexander was trying to sue the IRS, the U.S. Postal Service, and John Does for illegally creating a new currency. The allegations were patently baseless. In pursuing an appeal, therefore, Mr. Alexander "is acting in bad faith . . . [because] to sue in bad faith means merely to sue on the basis of a frivolous claim, which is to say a claim that no reasonable person could suppose to have any merit." Lee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025, 1026 (7th Cir. 2000); see also Upchurch v. O'Brien, 111 F.4th 805, 813 (7th Cir. 2024) ("An appeal is frivolous when the result is obvious or when the appellant's argument is wholly without merit.") (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

For these reasons, Mr. Alexander's motions for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, dkts. [16] and [17], are denied.

Finally, Mr. Alexander's motion to appoint counsel, dkt. [15], is denied. As the Court explained in its dismissal order, it would not be in the interest of justice to appoint counsel in a case that has no merit. Dkt. 8. To the extent Mr. Alexander wants counsel to assist him with his appeal, he must make that request by filing a motion in USCA Case Number 26-1748 in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

SO ORDERED.

Date: 5/4/2026 ands Pat tanlore James Patrick Hanlon United States District Judge Southern District of Indiana Distribution: HUNTER ALEXANDER 201044 PENDLETON - CF PENDLETON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Electronic Service Participant — Court Only Electronic notice to IDOC