David S. Johnson v. Amazon.com Services

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS DAVID S. JOHNSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) CIVIL ACTION ) v. ) No. 24-2485-KHV ) AMAZON.COM SERVICES, ) ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________________) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On December 20, 2024, the Court dismissed plaintiff’s claims against defendant. See Memorandum And Order (Doc. #17). On October 8, 2025, plaintiff filed a Motion To Vacate Judgment For Fraud On The Court Pursuant To Rule 60(d)(3) (Doc. #19) and Motion For Sanctions For Fraud On The Court Pursuant To Rule 11 (Doc. #20). On October 31, 2025, the Court overruled both motions. See Memorandum And Order (Doc. #23). On March 4, 2026, the Court overruled plaintiff’s Motion For Reconsideration (Doc. #24) filed November 14, 2025. See Memorandum And Order (Doc. #30). This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s Motion To Proceed Without Prepayment Of Fees (Doc. #32) filed March 23, 2026, which seeks leave to proceed without prepayment of fees on appeal. For reasons stated below, the Court overrules plaintiff’s motion.

The Court affords a pro se plaintiff some leniency and liberally construes his filings. See James v. Wadas, 724 F.3d 1312, 1315 (10th Cir. 2013). Although the Court holds a pro se litigant’s filings to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by attorneys, a pro se party must follow the same rules of procedure as all other litigants. See Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005).

Under Rule 24(a), Fed. R. App. P., plaintiff financially qualifies for in forma pauperis status. Under Rule 24(a)(1)(C), however, plaintiff’s motion must state the issues which he intends to appeal. Rule 24(a) requires such a statement because the district court will deny in forma pauperis status if it determines that the appeal is not taken in good faith. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3)(A). Good faith is an objective standard measured by whether the appeal is frivolous or lacks a “rational argument on the law or facts.” Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 448 (1962).

Plaintiff seeks to appeal in forma pauperis the Court’s Memorandum And Order (Doc. #23) and Memorandum And Order (Doc. #30). See Notice Of Appeal (Doc. #31) filed March 23, 2026.

In support, he provides certain financial information, but he does not make any substantive arguments or set forth any issues on appeal. Affidavit Accompanying Motion For Permission To Appeal In Forma Pauperis (Doc. #32-1) filed April 23, 2026, at 2 (leaving blank section for “issues on appeal”). For this reason and substantially the reasons stated in the Memorandum And Order (Doc. #23) and the Memorandum And Order (Doc. #30), the Court finds that plaintiff has not raised a “reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts in support of the issues raised on appeal.” DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 937 F.2d 502, 505 (10th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, plaintiff has not shown that he appeals in good faith, and the Court therefore overrules his motion to appeal in forma pauperis.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion To Proceed Without Prepayment Of Fees (Doc. #32) filed March 23, 2026 is OVERRULED.

Dated this 6th day of April, 2026 at Kansas City, Kansas. s/ Kathryn H. Vratil KATHRYN H. VRATIL United States District Judge