209 F.3d 1025 (7th Cir. 2000), 99-3250, Lee v. Clinton
|Docket Nº:||99-3250 & 99-3859|
|Citation:||209 F.3d 1025|
|Party Name:||Minghao Lee, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William J. Clinton, et al., Defendants-Appellees.|
|Case Date:||April 10, 2000|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit|
Submitted February 24, 2000
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. Nos. 99 C 501 & 99 C 607--Barbara B. Crabb, Judge.
Before Posner, Chief Judge, and Diane P. Wood and Evans, Circuit Judges.
Posner, Chief Judge.
The plaintiff, Lee, filed two insane complaints charging the United States and China with a conspiracy to "bio-chemically and bio-technologically infect and invade" various people including Lee with a mind reading and mental torture device that Lee calls "Mind Accessing and Torturing via Remote Energy Transferring (MATRET)." To elude MATRET, Lee claims to have developed a variety of space technologies, oddly including an email system and nanny services, that will enable the victims of MATRET to relocate to MATRET-free planets. The district judge dismissed the suits as frivolous, but granted Lee leave to appeal in forma pauperis.
We have held that "the granting of leave to appeal in forma pauperis from the dismissal of a frivolous suit is presumptively erroneous and indeed self-contradictory," Tolefree v. Cudahy, 49 F.3d 1243, 1244 (7th Cir. 1995), but that was before the Prison Litigation Reform Act amended 28 U.S.C. sec. 1915, the statute governing proceedings in forma pauperis in the federal courts. The standard for refusing to permit an appeal to be taken in forma pauperis is that the appeal be certified by the district court in writing as "not taken in good faith," 28 U.S.C. sec. 1915(a)(3), and in Newlin v. Helman, 123 F.3d 429, 433 (7th Cir. 1997), we suggested that "good faith" is not a synonym for "frivolous." Yet the two concepts have long been explicitly equated in decisions concerning pauper status, e.g., Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-46 (1962); Celske v. Edwards, 164 F.3d 396, 398 (7th Cir. 1999); Lucien v. Roegner, 682 F.2d 625, 626 (7th Cir. 1982) (per curiam); Wooten v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Dept., 129 F.3d 206, 208 (D.C. Cir. 1997); Urrutia v. Harrisburg County Police Dept., 91 F.3d 451, 455 n. 6 (3d Cir. 1996); Drummer v. Luttrell, 75 F.Supp.2d 796, 805 (W.D. Tenn. 1999), though only Celske and Urrutia arose under...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP