Chan v. Campanelli et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
YU HIN CHAN, 	Case No. 1:25-cv-697
Plaintiff, 	Cole, J.
Litkovitz, M.J.
vs.
JOY CAMPANELLI, et al., 	REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Defendants. 	TO DENY MOTION TO PROCEED
ON APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis on appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 	(Doc. 9).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), “[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if
the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” 	See also Fed. R. App. P.
24(a). 	Good faith in this context is demonstrated when the party seeks appellate review of an
issue that is not frivolous. 	See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). 	An
appeal is frivolous where the appeal lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact. 	Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
On October 6, 2025, the undersigned issued a Report recommending that plaintiff’s
complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 	(Doc. 5).
The undersigned further recommended that the District Judge certify that any in forma pauperis
appeal would not be taken in good faith within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). 	(Id.).
On October 22, 2025, the District Judge adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety
and certified that any in forma pauperis appeal from the Order would not be taken in good faith
within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) 	(Doc. 6). 	Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (Doc. 9) should be DENIED.
Case: 1:25-cv-00697-DRC-KLL Doc #: 10 Filed: 11/12/25 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:
1. 	Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (Doc. 9) be DENIED.
2. 	Plaintiff be advised of the following:
Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(4), a plaintiff may file, within thirty (30) days after
service of any Order adopting the Report and Recommendation, a motion with the Sixth Circuit
Court of Appeals for leave to proceed as a pauper on appeal. 	Callihan v. Schneider, 178 F.3d
800, 803 (6th Cir. 1999), overruling in part Floyd v. United States Postal Service, 105 F.3d 274
(6th Cir. 1997). 	The plaintiff’s motion must include a copy of the affidavit filed in the District
Court and the District Court’s statement of the reasons for denying pauper status on appeal. 	Id.;
see Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5).
The plaintiff is notified that if he does not file a motion within thirty (30) days of
receiving notice of the District Court’s decision as required by Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5), or fails
to pay the required filing fee of $505.00 within this same time period, the appeal will be
dismissed for want of prosecution. 	Callihan, 178 F.3d at 804. 	Once dismissed for want of
prosecution, the appeal will not be reinstated, even if the filing fee or motion for pauper status is
subsequently tendered, unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the plaintiff did not receive
notice of the District Court’s decision within the time period prescribed for by Fed. R. App. P.
24(a)(5). 	Id.
Date:
Karen L. Litkovitz, Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
11/12/2025
Case: 1:25-cv-00697-DRC-KLL Doc #: 10 Filed: 11/12/25 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
YU HIN CHAN, 	Case No. 1:25-cv-697
Plaintiff, 	Cole, J.
Litkovitz, M.J.
vs.
JOY CAMPANELLI, et al.,
Defendants.
NOTICE
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy of
the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the
proposed findings and recommendations. 	This period may be extended further by the Court on
timely motion for an extension. 	Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report
objected to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. 	If
the Report and Recommendation is based in whole or in part upon matters occurring on the
record at an oral hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the
record, or such portions of it as all parties may agree upon, or the Magistrate Judge deems
sufficient, unless the assigned District Judge otherwise directs. 	A party may respond to another
party=s objections WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. 	Failure to make
objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. 	See Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
Case: 1:25-cv-00697-DRC-KLL Doc #: 10 Filed: 11/12/25 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>