CANTY v. PRIOR, 5:17-cv-00237

Plaintiff Martin Canty filed a habeas-related civil complaint in federal court challenging state-court habeas proceedings and alleging conspiracy, denial of a full hearing, and invidious discrimination.
The district court dismissed the complaint on November 3, 2017, concluding Canty was a state-court loser whose claims were barred by the Rooker–Feldman doctrine and that many defendants were immune or time-barred.
Canty moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal, submitting an affidavit and a certified trust account showing inability to pay the $505 appellate filing fee.
The court reviewed the IFP standards under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24, requiring (1) financial inability to pay and (2) that the appeal is taken in good faith (i.e., presents a non-frivolous issue).
The court found Canty unable to pay but concluded his appeal lacked arguable merit because it sought review of state-court judgments (Rooker–Feldman), targeted judges and prosecutors entitled to immunity, and included claims barred by Georgia’s two-year statute of limitations.
The court denied IFP on appeal, certified the appeal was not taken in good faith, and directed that Canty may still appeal only by paying the full fee or through the § 1915(b) partial-payment plan (20% monthly withdrawals when account exceeds $10).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Canty's appeal may proceed IFP	Canty cannot afford fees and seeks review of alleged denial of a fair hearing and conspiracies in state habeas proceedings	Court must deny IFP if appeal is not in good faith or is frivolous	Canty's IFP motion denied: financially unable but appeal lacks arguable merit (not in good faith)
Whether federal court may review state-court judgments	Canty seeks federal review and relief for injuries caused by state-court rulings	Such claims are barred by Rooker–Feldman because they seek review of state-court decisions	Dismissal affirmed as Rooker–Feldman barred federal review of state judgments
Availability of relief against state judges and prosecutors	Canty alleges conspiracy involving judges and state attorneys	Judges and prosecuting attorneys are protected by judicial/ prosecutorial immunity	Claims against judges and assistant state attorneys general barred by immunity
Timeliness of claims against appellate attorney and court reporter	Canty asserts claims against his appellate counsel and court reporter relating to habeas proceedings	Defendants assert Georgia’s two-year statute of limitations bars the claims	Court held those claims time-barred under Georgia's two-year statute of limitations

Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962) (good-faith standard for IFP appeals: non-frivolousness)
Morris v. Ross, 664 F.2d 1032 (11th Cir. 1981) (IFP appeal standards and good-faith discussion)
Napier v. Preslicka, 314 F.3d 528 (11th Cir. 2002) (frivolousness defined as lacking arguable merit in law or fact)
Sun v. Forrester, 939 F.2d 924 (11th Cir. 1991) (district court must find a factual and legal basis of constitutional dimension before allowing IFP appeal)
Carroll v. Gross, 984 F.2d 392 (11th Cir. 1993) (frivolous suits are those where plaintiff has little or no chance of success)