Ryles v. Dunn et al (INMATE 3)

Filing 20

ORDER construing Ryles' 19 motion for a certificate of appealability and notice of appeal as containing a motion to appeal in forma pauperis; finding that Ryles has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. In addition, the Court is of the opinion that Ryles' appeal has no legal or factual basis and, accordingly, is frivolous and not taken in good faith; ORDERING that Ryles' 19 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis and Motion for Certificate of Appealability are DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Emily C. Marks on 11/4/2021. (djy, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
BRANDON JAMAL RYLES,
# 296964,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON S. DUNN, et al.,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACT. NO.2:18-cv-569-ECM
(WO)

ORDER
Now pending before the Court is Petitioner Brandon Jamal Ryles’ motion for a
certificate of appealability and notice of appeal (doc. 19) which the Court construes as
containing a motion to appeal in forma pauperis. The motions are due to be denied.
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). Further, “[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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). 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).

Applying these standards, the Court finds that Ryles has not made a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right. In addition, the Court is of the opinion that
Ryles’ appeal has no 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).
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Ryles’ motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis and motion for
a certificate of appealability (doc. 19) are DENIED.
Done this 4th day of November, 2021.
/s/ Emily C. Marks
EMILY C. MARKS
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2