Dartagnan Little v. K. Williams, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION DARTAGNAN LITTLE, Case No. 22-12222 Plaintiff, F. Kay Behm v. U.S. District Judge K. WILLIAMS, et al., Defendants. ___________________________ / ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DENIAL OF APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL (ECF No. 116) and GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF No. 117) Plaintiff brought a prisoner civil rights action against Defendants. The court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint. (ECF Nos. 104, 105).

Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. (ECF No. 53). In a prior order (ECF No. 115), the court found that Plaintiff’s application was deficient in that he has not completed Form 4, which includes information about Plaintiff’s financial status and states the issues the party intends to present on appeal. The court found that Plaintiff had not provided sufficient credible information for the court to assess his eligibility for in forma pauperis status. See Young v. Nessel, No. 20-12707, 2021 WL 5713678, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 16, 2021) (“Inadequate completion of an application to proceed in forma pauperis is grounds for denial of that application in the Eastern District of Michigan.”).

Under Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(h)(2), a party may file a motion for reconsideration of a non-final order only if: (A) the court made a mistake, correcting the mistake changes the outcome of the prior decision, and the mistake was based on the record and law before the court at the time of its prior decision, (B) an intervening change in controlling law warrants a different outcome, or (C) new facts warrant a different outcome and the new facts could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence before the prior decision. E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(2).

On further review of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24, the court finds that Plaintiff’s application falls under Rule 24(a)(3), which provides that a party who was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in the district court action may proceed in forma pauperis on appeal without further authorization, unless the district court certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith. Here, the court has not so certified and thus, Plaintiff is entitled to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal because he was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in this court. Additionally, Plaintiff has now completed Form 4. (ECF No. 117). Accordingly, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal and concludes that Plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.

SO ORDERED.

Date: January 22, 2026 s/ F. Kay Behm F. Kay Behm United States District Judge