Johnson v. Amazon.com Services LLC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
DAVID S. JOHNSON, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	) 	CIVIL ACTION
)
v. 	) 	No. 24-2485-KHV
)
AMAZON.COM SERVICES, 	)
)
)
Defendant. 	)
____________________________________________)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On December 20, 2024, the Court dismissed plaintiff’s claims against defendant. 	See
Memorandum And Order (Doc. #17). 	On October 8, 2025, plaintiff filed a Motion To Vacate
Judgment For Fraud On The Court Pursuant To Rule 60(d)(3) (Doc. #19) and Motion For
Sanctions For Fraud On The Court Pursuant To Rule 11 (Doc. #20). 	On October 31, 2025, the
Court overruled both motions. See Memorandum And Order (Doc. #23). On March 4, 2026, the
Court overruled plaintiff’s Motion For Reconsideration (Doc. #24) filed November 14, 2025. See
Memorandum And Order (Doc. #30). 	This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s Motion To
Proceed Without Prepayment Of Fees (Doc. #32) filed March 23, 2026, which seeks leave to
proceed without prepayment of fees on appeal. 	For reasons stated below, the Court overrules
plaintiff’s motion.
The Court affords a pro se plaintiff some leniency and liberally construes his filings. See
James v. Wadas, 724 F.3d 1312, 1315 (10th Cir. 2013). Although the Court holds a pro se litigant’s
filings to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by attorneys, a pro se party must
follow the same rules of procedure as all other litigants. See Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux &
Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005).
Case 2:24-cv-02485-KHV-TJJ Document 37 Filed 04/07/26 Page 1 of 2

-2-
Under Rule 24(a), Fed. R. App. P., plaintiff financially qualifies for in forma pauperis
status. Under Rule 24(a)(1)(C), however, plaintiff’s motion must state the issues which he intends
to appeal. 	Rule 24(a) requires such a statement because the district court will deny in forma
pauperis status if it determines that the appeal is not taken in good faith. 	See Fed. R. App.
P. 24(a)(3)(A). Good faith is an objective standard measured by whether the appeal is frivolous
or lacks a “rational argument on the law or facts.” Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 448
(1962).
Plaintiff seeks to appeal in forma pauperis the Court’s Memorandum And Order (Doc. #23)
and Memorandum And Order (Doc. #30). See Notice Of Appeal (Doc. #31) filed March 23, 2026.
In support, he provides certain financial information, but he does not make any substantive
arguments or set forth any issues on appeal. Affidavit Accompanying Motion For Permission To
Appeal In Forma Pauperis (Doc. #32-1) filed April 23, 2026, at 2 (leaving blank section for “issues
on appeal”). For this reason and substantially the reasons stated in the Memorandum And Order
(Doc. #23) and the Memorandum And Order (Doc. #30), the Court finds that plaintiff has not
raised a “reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts in support of the issues raised on
appeal.” 	DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 937 F.2d 502, 505 (10th Cir. 1991). 	Accordingly, plaintiff
has not shown that he appeals in good faith, and the Court therefore overrules his motion to appeal
in forma pauperis.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion To Proceed Without Prepayment
Of Fees (Doc. #32) filed March 23, 2026 is OVERRULED.
Dated this 6th day of April, 2026 at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ Kathryn H. Vratil
KATHRYN H. VRATIL
United States District Judge
Case 2:24-cv-02485-KHV-TJJ Document 37 Filed 04/07/26 Page 2 of 2