Fisher v. Whitlock, 6:17-cv-00574

Dorothy Fisher (pro se) sued her brother Gregory Whitlock and AuthorHouse, LLC claiming misappropriation of royalties from her federally registered cookbook and negligent failure by the publisher to confirm Whitlock’s authority.
Fisher filed an initial complaint and an amended complaint; the district court dismissed for failure to plead federal-question jurisdiction and to allege AuthorHouse’s citizenship, and gave opportunities to amend.
Fisher failed to cure the jurisdictional defects within the deadlines; the case was dismissed on May 16, 2017.
Fisher moved for reconsideration over a year later and filed multiple post-judgment motions seeking the court’s statement of jurisdiction and a hearing; the court denied or struck those motions.
Fisher filed a notice of appeal on December 12, 2018 and an application to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis; the magistrate judge recommended denial, concluding the appeal was not taken in good faith and was untimely.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the appeal may proceed in forma pauperis	Fisher seeks leave to proceed IFP on appeal asserting entitlement to review of the dismissal and post-judgment denials	Implicitly, court opposes IFP because appeal is frivolous and untimely	Denied: appeal not taken in good faith; IFP should be refused
Whether plaintiff’s claims invoked federal jurisdiction	Fisher alleged federal copyright registration and misconduct but provided vague jurisdictional allegations	Court required proper pleading of federal-question jurisdiction and complete diversity/citizenship for AuthorHouse	Held Fisher failed to adequately plead subject-matter jurisdiction after three opportunities; dismissal appropriate
Whether post-judgment motions warranted relief/reconsideration	Fisher argued her attorney failed to appear and sought setting aside dismissal and hearings	Court found motions untimely, procedurally improper, and meritless	Motions denied/stricken; reconsideration denied as untimely and without merit
Whether the appeal was timely	Fisher filed notice of appeal over 30 days (and long after statutory exceptions)	Court notes the appeal was filed well beyond filing deadlines and no exceptions apply	Held untimely; appeal is time-barred

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (frivolous suits and purpose of IFP statute)
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (good-faith standard for IFP appeals)
Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215 (5th Cir.) (good-faith demonstration for appeals)
Sun v. Forrester, 939 F.2d 924 (11th Cir.) (frivolity standard for IFP appeals; need factual/legal basis)
Fla. Wildlife Fed’n, Inc. v. S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., 647 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir.) (court must ensure it has subject-matter jurisdiction before proceeding)
Cooley v. Ocwen Loan Serv., LLC, [citation="729 F. App'x 677"] (11th Cir.) (frivolous suit defined by slim realistic chances of success)