Whether the Sixth Circuit erred by denying Raudenbush's application to proceed in forma pauperis

ESTIONS PRESENTED This is a police brutality case. On the evening of December 30, 2010, police officer Brian Millsaps of the Monroe County Police Department attacked the Petitioner, George Joseph Raudenbush. : Officer Millsaps attack was part of a coordinated effort by the police of Monroe County, Tennessee to remove Raudenbush from the area. The police wanted Raudenbush out because they were protecting the illegal methampetamine industry in the area. Raudenbush was attempting to report their involvement to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. After Millsaps attacked Raudenbush, the police of Monroe County pressed false charges against Raudenbush, in an attempt to discredit and silence his testimony. During the subsequent criminal proceedings, the local court denied Raudenbush the right to counsel and actually appointed the bailiff, a non-lawyer, to represent him. Raudenbush filed suit against Monroe County, Tennessee for damages for police brutality and false prosecution. USS. District Court Judge Pamela Reeves dismissed the case, contending that Raudenbush was bound by collateral estoppel, from the unlawful criminal prosecution. Collateral estoppel did not actually apply, since Raudenbush did not receive a full and fair opportunity to litigate the original maliciously-filed criminal case against him. Raudenbush appealed Judge Reeves’ decision, contending that he had been denied due process in the Tennessee criminal proceeding. On appeal, Raudenbush asked to appear in forma pauperis, due to the injuries he suffered in the attack. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit refused to allow Raudenbush to do so, based on principles of collateral estoppel. The Court found that Raudenbush was bound by the underlying Tennessee conviction -even though Raudenbush was not permitted to present exculpatory evidence in the underlying Tennessee case. The issues in this case are as follows: 1. Whether the Sixth Circuit erred by denying Raudenbush's application to proceed in forma pauperis. 2. Whether the Sixth Circuit erred by finding that Raudenbush's appeal was "frivolous," when he was denied a full and fair opportunity to litigate the related criminal defense case. 3. Whether the Sixth Circuit erred by finding that Raudenbush's appeal was "frivolous," when he was denied the right to effective counsel in the underlying criminal defense case. i