Moran v. Svete, 3:05-cv-00072

Moran, as Receiver for LifeTime Capital, Inc., seeks relief in a civil case against Svete and others in the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division (Dayton).
Svete has been convicted of conspiracy, mail fraud, money laundering, and interstate transportation of fraud proceeds, and is incarcerated in Texas.
Svete filed notices of appeal (Docs. 96, 105) and multiple motions (Docs. 88, 89, 90, 97, 102, 103, 106–108) in the civil case.
Svete has not paid the filing fee or filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, triggering the 1915(a)(2) requirement.
The magistrate recommends certifying, under 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(3), that the notices of appeal are not brought in good faith because the orders appealed are non-final and not subject to interlocutory review under §1292; the orders did not end the litigation and did not resolve a controlling legal question.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the appeals are brought in good faith under §1915(a)(3).	Moran argues Svete’s appeals are frivolous.	Svete contends his notices challenge non-final orders.	Yes; appeals are not in good faith.
Whether the orders are final appeals under §1291.	Moran asserts the orders are final decisions.	Svete argues they are appealable orders.	No; non-final orders do not support a §1291 appeal.
Whether the orders are subject to interlocutory appeal under §1292(a), (b).	Moran indicates no applicable interlocutory questions.	Svete seeks review of non-dispositive orders.	No; not subject to §1292 interlocutory appeal.
Whether Svete was required to pay the filing fee or proceed in forma pauperis to commence appeal.	Moran notes failure to pay or seek pauperis status.	Svete intends to seek pauperis status.	Yes; must pay fee or obtain in forma pauperis status.

Lauro Lines S.R.L. v. Chasser, 490 U.S. 495 (1989) (finality of district court decisions for §1291 appeals)
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962) (test for good faith on a §1915 appeal: nonfrivolous issues)
In re City of Memphis, 293 F.3d 345 (6th Cir. 2002) (interlocutory appeals are rare and require exceptional circumstances)
United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981) (objections procedures and consequences for appeal rights)