Hardy v. Scutt et al, No. 2:2011cv13072 - Document 85 (E.D. Mich. 2015)

Court Description: OPINION and ORDER Denying 83 Application to Proceed on Appeal Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. Signed by District Judge Gerald E. Rosen. (SBur)

Download PDF
Hardy v. Scutt et al Doc. 85 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION CHESTER HARDY, Plaintiff, No. 11-CV-13072 Hon. Gerald E. Rosen v. DEBRA SCUTT, et al., Defendants. ______________________/ OPINION AND ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED ON APPEAL WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS At a session of said Court, held in the U.S. Courthouse, Detroit, Michigan on September 30, 2015 PRESENT: Honorable Gerald E. Rosen United States District Chief Judge Plaintiff Chester Hardy brought this § 1983 prisoner civil rights suit against various Michigan Department of Corrections officials and prison health care providers claiming they were deliberately indifferent to his need for cataract surgery in violation of his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. On February 23, 2015, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s case, in its entirety, and certified that any appeal would be frivolous and not in good faith. [See Dkt. # 72, Opinion and Order, and Dkt. # 73, Judgment]. Plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal. Plaintiff has also filed an application to proceed on appeal without Dockets.Justia.com prepaying fees or costs. The Court finds that this application is MOOT in light of the Court’s previous certification that an appeal of this matter would be frivolous and not in good faith. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed on Appeal Without Prepaying Fees or Costs [Dkt. # 83] is DENIED. s/Gerald E. Rosen Chief Judge, United States District Court Dated: September 30, 2015 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on September 30, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. s/Julie Owens Case Manager, (313) 234-5135

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.