Hatfield v. United States of America (INMATE 3)

Filing 57

ORDER: Before the court is Petitioner Therral Hatfields Notice of Appeal (Doc. 56 ), which is construed as containing a motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis and motion for certificate of appealability. (Doc. 55 .) The motions are due to be denied. It is ORDERED that Petitioner's 55 Motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis and Motion for Certificate of Appealability are DENIED as further set out in the order. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 11/9/2015. (dmn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
THERRAL HATFIELD,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 2:13-CV-324-WKW
[WO]

ORDER
Before the court is Petitioner Therral Hatfield’s Notice of Appeal (Doc.
# 56), which is construed as containing a motion for leave to appeal in forma
pauperis and motion for certificate of appealability. (Doc. # 55.) The motions are
due to be denied.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) provides that “[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma
pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” In
making this determination as to good faith, the court must use an objective
standard, such as whether the appeal is “frivolous,” Coppedge v. United States, 369
U.S. 438, 445 (1962), or “has no substantive merit,” United States v. Bottoson, 644
F.2d 1174, 1176 (5th Cir. Unit B May 1981) (per curiam). In addition, a certificate
of appealability is necessary before a petitioner may pursue an appeal in a habeas
corpus proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). To mandate the issuance of a

certificate of appealability, a petitioner must make a “substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); see also Barefoot v.
Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983).
Applying these standards, the court is of the opinion that Petitioner’s appeal
is without a legal or factual basis and, accordingly, is frivolous and not taken in
good faith. See Rudolph v. Allen, 666 F.2d 519, 520 (11th Cir. 1982) (per curiam).
Furthermore, Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for leave to appeal in
forma pauperis and motion for certificate of appealability (Doc. # 55) are
DENIED.
DONE this 9th day of November, 2015.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2