MEMORANDUM & ORDER On August 22, 2018, this court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment against Plaintiff Jamal Adeen Azeez. Following that ruling, which was affirmed by the Second Circuit, this court twice denied his motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b). He then, prose, sought to appeal the second order denying such relief, and, in doing so, moved for leave to proceed in form a pauperis. The Second Circuit has directed this court to rule on Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status before considering his appeal. (Mar. 8, 2022 Order of USCA (Dkt. 112).) For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed this civil rights action on January 21, 2016 against the City of New York, New York Police Department Commissioner William J. Bratton, and Police Officer Brett Strauss, alleging racial and religious discrimination pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 and state law. (Compl. (Dkt. 1).) On August 22, 2018, the court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to all of Plaintiffs claims and denied Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. See Azeez v. City of N. Y., No. 16-CV-342, 2018 WL 4017580 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2018) (Dkt. 91). On October 5, 2018, Plaintiff moved to amend the judgment, which the court leniently construed as a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from the judgment. (Oct. 5, 2018 Mot. (Dkt. 94).) On October 9, 2018, Plaintiff also filed an appeal. (Oct. 9, 2018 Not. of Appeal (Dkt. 96).) On November 2, 2018, the court denied Plaintiff’s first Rule 60(b) motion. (Nov. 2, 2018 Order (Dkt. 100).) After denying Plaintiff’s petition for a panel rehearing, or in the alternative, for rehearing en bane, on January 31, 2020, the Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Defendants. See Azeez v. City of N. Y, 790 F. App’x 270 (2d Cir. 2019) (Dkt. 102) (summary order). On February 26, 2020, Plaintiff filed a second Rule 60(b) motion for relief from the judgment. (Feb. 26, 2020 Mot. (Dkt. 104).) Magistrate Judge Bulsara issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on August 25, 2020, recommending that this court deny the motion and impose a filing injunction. (R&R (Dkt. 105).) After more than fourteen days passed, and no objections were filed, the court entered an order adopting the R&R in its entirety. See Azeez v. City of N.Y., No.16-CV-342, 2020WL5554878 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 2020) (Dkt. 106). Plaintiff filed objections to the R&R on the day before it was adopted. (Pl.’s Obj. (0kt. 107).) On November 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for a ruling on his objections, maintaining that his objections were timely because he mailed them on September 3, 2020, which was within the 14-day window to object. (Nov. 23, 2020 Mot. (Dkt. 109)
1-3.) Since the court must liberally construe pro se filings, the court treated Plaintiffs motion as a motion for reconsideration. Upon reconsideration, the court again adopted the R&R in full. See Azeez v. City of N.Y., No. 16-CV-342, 2021 WL 3578500 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2021) (Dkt. 110). On September 17, 2021, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on his motion for reconsideration of his second Rule 60(b) motion. (Sept. 17, 2021 Not. of Appeal (Dkt. 111).) The Second Circuit directed this court to first determine whether Plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis. (Mar. 8, 2022 Order of USCA.) II. PLAINITFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS A. Applicable Law To appeal in forma pauperi.s from an order of the district court, a party must file an affidavit that “(A) shows…the party’s inability to pay or to give security for fees and costs; (B) claims an entitlement to redress; and (C) states the issues that the party intends to present on appeal.” Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1). The statement of issues must sufficiently “apprise the court of the foundation for [the party's] appeal or the arguments that he plans to raise in support of his case.” Purisima v. Tiffany Entertainment, No. 09-CV-3502 (NGG) (LB), 2018 WL 7063128, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2018).1 However, even where a party has made a prima facie case that in forma pauperis status is warranted, “an appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(3); United States v. Farley, 238 F.2d 575, 576 (1956) (“[I]f on consideration the trial judge is conscientiously convinced that there is no substantial question for review and that an appeal will be futile, or if he is convinced that there is no reasonable basis for the claims of alleged error, it is the duty of the trial judge, albeit not a pleasant duty, to certify that the appeal is not taken in good faith.”). A party demonstrates good faith when the party “seeks appellate review of any issue not frivolous.” Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). Since this is an objective test, the court need not inquire into the party’s “subjective point of view.” Id. at 445. Courts in this circuit have consistently found that allowing a party to proceed in forma pauperis is inappropriate where a party “fail[s] to show that [the] appeal would not simply raise the same issues that this court has repeatedly deemed to be frivolous.” Purisima, 2018 WL 7063128, at *2; see al.so Garcia v. Paylock, No. 13-CV-2868 (KAM), 2014 WL 1365478, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 7, 2014) (“By merely rehashing his previous, meritless arguments, plaintiff has not presented a good faith basis for an appeal.”); United Parcel Serv. of Am., Inc. v. The Net, Inc., 470 F. Supp. 2d 190, 194 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) (”The Court finds that an appeal of this Court’s order would be frivolous and lacking in good faith. The issues [the party] seeks to raise on appeal have been previously addressed by the Court.”). Ultimately, the decision as to whether a party may “proceed in forma pauperis is left to the District Court’s discretion.” Fridman v. City of N.Y., 195 F. Supp. 2d 534, 536 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). B. Discussion Here, Plaintiff rehashes the same frivolous allegations that have been repeatedly denied by this court and the Second Circuit. First, Plaintiff contends that Officer Strauss perjured himself during the Department of Motor Vehicles (“DMV’) hearings related to Plaintiffs traffic infractions, including by allegedly covering up where he was parked during the traffic stops since it violated the NYPD Patrol Guide. (See In Forma Pauperi.s Mot. (“IFP Mot.”) (Dkt. 113)
