Pruitt v. Hooks et al

Filing 29

ORDER denying 28 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 03/13/2015. (thb)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA AUGUSTA DIVISION * KENNETH CLARK PRUITT, * * Petitioner, * * v. CV 114-120 * * BRAD HOOKS, * * Respondent. ORDER Presently before Reconsideration (Doc. 27) (Doc. (Doc. the 28.) Court of is Petitioner's Motion this Court's February 25, 2 015 Order 25). On denying his request to appeal for December 23, 2014, the Court petition and closed this case. Court determined because "an U.S.C. § that appeal would 1915(a)(3). not denied (Doc. Petitioner be (Id.) in forma pauperis 18.) was not taken (Doc. 25), reconsideration of which its the Petitioner's entitled in good December 23, 2014 2254 appeal to as Order under this leave construed to faith" Notwithstanding Court § At the same time, the Petitioner subsequently filed a motion for appeal ("IFP") (Doc. 28 finding, file a IFP an IFP motion for 27). As Petitioner failed to raise any grounds justifying reconsideration in his motion or denied the motion. Now, for reconsider his the in his notice of appeal (Doc. 20), the Court (Id.) second right to time, appeal Petitioner IFP, which asks is the Court grounded to in the Court's December 23, 2014 finding that there are no non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal. He contends that "an appeal would be taken in good faith" and he is "excused from full compliance with technical compliance." procedural (Doc. rules, 28.) provided there Neither argument is substantial is persuasive, they present any grounds justifying reconsideration of of Petitioner's frivolous case issues. and the related Accordingly, Reconsideration is DENIED. (Doc. right to appeal Petitioner's nor do the merits IFP non- Motion for 28.) ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this f 81j> day of March, 2015. HONO^Zy3pf J. RANp&L HALL UNITED^STATES DISTRICT JUDGE §RN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?