A federal court has denied a former Amazon worker’s request to appeal a wrongful termination and defamation lawsuit without paying court fees, finding his appeal lacks a good faith basis and fails to present any non-frivolous legal argument.
The decision stems from a dispute involving D.K., a former employee at Amazon’s ATL6 warehouse facility in East Point, Georgia. D.K. alleged he was wrongfully terminated after an altercation on July 16, 2022, during which he claims he was assaulted by another individual but did not retaliate. Amazon terminated his employment shortly thereafter, and D.K. asserts that the company falsely justified the decision.
According to the complaint, D.K. filed a charge with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on October 17, 2022, alleging discrimination. The EEOC closed the matter after determining there was no evidence to support his claim and issued a right-to-sue letter.
Despite that, D.K. proceeded to file a civil complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on January 17, 2023. He also sought permission to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), meaning without paying filing fees due to financial hardship. The court initially granted his request but directed him to amend his complaint, citing deficiencies in the original filing.
After reviewing the amended complaint, a magistrate judge recommended dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court adopted that recommendation and dismissed the case without prejudice.
Appeal fails to address jurisdictional deficiencies
In seeking to appeal the dismissal, D.K. again applied to proceed IFP. But the court found that his application failed to demonstrate a valid basis for appeal and ruled that the appeal was not taken in good faith.
“Even assuming for the sake of argument that [his allegations] were true, [the] appeal does not address the critical issue identified in the R&R,” the court wrote, referring to the final report and recommendation that found his amended complaint failed to establish a basis for federal jurisdiction.
The court emphasized that, under both 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24, a party seeking to appeal IFP must not only show financial hardship but also demonstrate that the appeal presents a non-frivolous legal issue.
While the court acknowledged that D.K.’s affidavit established his inability to pay, it concluded that the appeal lacked any arguable merit under law or fact. D.K. argued that Amazon’s human resources department would have treated the incident differently had he been a white male, and claimed that video and witness evidence supported his allegations. However, the court determined that these assertions failed to cure the fundamental jurisdictional flaw in his amended complaint.
“Killion’s appeal is not taken in good faith and does not survive frivolity review,” the court held.
No federal claim established in amended complaint
The ruling further highlighted that the underlying claims—wrongful termination and defamation—did not arise under federal law, and D.K. had not alleged facts to support any federal cause of action. Without a valid claim under federal statutes or a basis for diversity jurisdiction, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to proceed.
Because of that, the court dismissed the case without prejudice, allowing D.K. to potentially pursue the matter in state court, where jurisdiction over defamation and wrongful dismissal claims under state law may be more appropriate.
The court advised that any further attempt to proceed IFP should be directed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals within 30 days, in accordance with appellate procedure.
For more information, see Killion v. Amazon ATL 6, No. 1:2023cv00232 – Document 17 (N.D. Ga. 2025).
