CHRISTOPHER SWEENEY v. ACRO CONSTRUCTION LLC (2026)

ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL

The Court dismissed this case on shotgun pleading grounds. See Doc. 172. Plaintiff appealed the dismissal order to the Eleventh Circuit (Doc. 183) and filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal (Doc. 184). No response to the motion is needed.

The motion is due to be denied for two reasons.

First, a party may only proceed IFP on appeal if his financial affidavit shows that he is unable to pay the appellate filing fee. See 28 U.SC. § 1915(a)(1); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1). Plaintiff's financial affidavit shows that he has nearly $5,500 in monthly income, which is more than enough to pay the appellate filing fee. The Court did not overlook that the affidavit lists monthly expenses of nearly $6,500, but those expenses appear to be overstated (e.g., $1,150 per month for food) and include other non-essential expenses (e.g., $200 for “recreation, entertainment, newspapers, magazines, etc.”).

Second, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), “[a]n appeal may not be taken [IFP] if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” An appeal is taken in good faith only if it seeks review of an objectively non-frivolous issue. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). An issue “is frivolous if it is without arguable merit either in law or fact[,]” Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2001) (citing Battle v. Cent. State Hosp., 898 F.2d 126, 129 (11th Cir. 1990)), or “when it appears the [appellant] has little or no chance of success[,]” Carroll v. Gross, 984 F.2d 392, 393 (11th Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Harris v. Menendez, 817 F.2d 737, 740 (11th Cir. 1987)).

Here, for the reasons stated in the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 152), the dismissal order (Doc. 172), the order denying reconsideration (Doc. 176), and the other post-R&R orders (Docs. 157, 162, 166), the Court is not persuaded that any of the issues identified in the IFP motion have arguable merit in fact or law. Thus, the Court certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion to proceed IFP on appeal (Doc. 184) is DENIED, and Plaintiff must pay the $605.00 filing fee within 30 days of the date of this Order.

2. The Clerk shall provide a copy of this Order to the Eleventh Circuit in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(4).

DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of July, 2026.

T. KENT WETHERELL, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE