Williams v. Bechtold

Filing 57

ORDER denying 47 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 51 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis; denying 53 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 2/26/16. (cmr)

IN THE UNITED

FOR THE

STATES DISTRICT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
WAYCROSS

FRANKLIN L.

COURT

WILLIAMS,

DIVISION

*
*

Petitioner,

*
*

v,

CV 514-007

*

WILLIAM BECHTOLD,

Warden,

*
•pic-

Respondent.

*

ORDER

Currently before the Court are the following motions by
Petitioner

Franklin

L.

Williams:

a

motion

for

reconsideration

(doc. 47); motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis ("IFP")
(doc.

51);

and a second motion for leave to appeal in

pauperis (doc 53) .
filed

forma

These motions are just three of many Mr.

Williams

has

in

this

Court.

On

January

Williams

filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus

motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

23,

2014,

Mr.

and a

(Docs. 1 & 2.)

The United States Magistrate Judge denied the motion to proceed
IFP

(doc.

3)

on April 21,

2014,

and this Court dismissed Mr.

Williams's § 2241 petition on August 12, 2014 (doc. 18).

This

Court

case

then

denied

Mr.

Williams's

motion

to

reopen

the

(docs. 22 & 23), motion for reconsideration (docs. 27 & 28), and
motion to set aside judgment

appealed each of these Orders.

(docs.

29 & 32).

Mr.

(Docs. 24, 30, & 33.)

Williams

While on

appeal,

the

Eleventh

Circuit

denied

Mr.

Williams's

motion

to

appeal IFP this Court's rulings on his motion to reopen and his
motion for reconsideration.

(Doc.

36.)

Mr.

Williams then asked

this Court for permission to appeal the same rulings IFP.

37.)

Because

so,

and

because the Eleventh Circuit had already denied his request,

the

Court

denied

subsequently

he

gave

his

no

reason

motion.

denied

Mr.

for the

(Doc.

38.)

Williams's

Court

The

motion

to

do

(Doc.

Eleventh

to

appeal

Circuit

IFP

this

Court's ruling on his motion to set aside judgment and dismissed
his case

for failure to prosecute.

(Docs. 41, 42, & 43.)

Mr.

Williams then moved to stay the Eleventh Circuit's proceedings,
which

the

Court

denied.

filed

the

current

(Docs.

motion

for

notice of appeal

(doc.

(doc.

motion to

46)

on his

48)

45,

Mr.

reconsideration

Williams

(doc.

47)

then
and

a

with respect to the Court's Order
stay.

Mr.

proceed IFP with respect to that appeal.
1.

46.)

Williams

then moved to

(Doc. 51.)

Motion to Reconsider

Regarding

Mr.

Williams's

motion

to

reconsider,

he

is

raising the same arguments that he has already raised and fails
to raise any grounds justifying reconsideration.
Mr.

2.

Williams's motion for reconsideration (doc 47)

Accordingly,
is DENIED.

Motions to Appeal IFP

On the

proceed IFP.
that Mr.

Court's

docket,

there are

currently two motions to

Upon review of those motions, however, it appears

Williams

has

actually

only moved

to appeal

IFP with

respect to the Court's Order denying his motion to

stay because

docket entry 51 contains only an affidavit while docket entry 53
contains

Mr.

Williams's

actual

request

to

appeal

IFP.

Accordingly, the Court will treat these two motions as one.
The

requirements

for

litigants

appeal are set forth in 28 U.S.C.

seeking

to

§ 1915.

proceed

IFP

In addition

on

to the

financial requirements, § 1915(a)(3) provides that "[a]n appeal may
not be taken IFP if the trial court certifies in writing that it is

not taken in good faith."

A defendant's good faith is demonstrated

when he seeks appellate review of any issue that is not frivolous.
United States v. Buitrago, No.

(S.D.

Fla.

July 13,

U.S.

438

(1962)).

motivation

2009)

objectively

speaking,

2949549,

is

is

Falu v.

at *2 (S.D. Ala.

IFP appeal

appellant's

is not

there

litigated on appeal."

frivolous,

any

the

faith

but

2008).

district

Forrester,

939

08-0059-WS-C,

1

However,

"[t]he

good-faith

925

test

to

be

2008 WL

In deciding whether an

court

determines

whether

of constitutional dimension,

however inartfully pleaded."1

F.2d 924,

whether,

issue

Cnty. of Volusia, 189 F.R.D. 687, 693 (M.D. Fla. 1999)
v.

369

subjective

rather

non-frivolous

Potter, No.

July 30,

United States,

good

relevant,

there is "a factual and legal basis,

for the asserted wrong,

2009 WL 2076324, at *2

(citing Coppedge v.

"[A]n

for appealing

96-00067-CR,

(11th Cir.

must

not

1991)).

be

Busch v.
(citing Sun
In fact,

converted

into

a

requirement of a preliminary showing of any particular degree of merit."
Ellis v. United States,

356 U.S. 674, 674-75 (1958).

"[amplication may be denied if it appears — objectively — that the

appeal cannot succeed as a matter of law."

Additionally,

24(a)(1),

under

Federal

Rule

Id. at 692.

of

Appellate

Procedure

a party to a district court action who seeks to appeal

IFP must file a motion and an affidavit in the district court that

(A)
fees

details the party's inability to pay or to give security for
and

costs,

(B)

claims

an

entitlement

states the legal issues on appeal.

redress,

and

(C)

"If a party fails to state the

legal issues to be raised on appeal,
should be denied."

to

permission to appeal

Schmitt v. United States Office of Pers.

[IFP]
Mgmt.,

No. 8:09-cv-943-T-27EAJ, 2009 WL 3417866, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 19,

2009) .

Thus,

under § 1915 and Rule 24, two requirements must be

satisfied in order to proceed on IFP on appeal.

must show an inability to pay.

First,

the party

Second, the appeal must be brought

in good faith.

Here,

Mr.

Williams

has

failed

issue that he intends to appeal.

to state

a non-frivolous

His request simply states that

he intends to appeal the Court's ruling and requests permission
to do so IFP.

(Doc. 53.)

Similarly, Mr. Williams's notice of

appeal fails to provide a non-frivolous issue for appeal.
48.)

(Doc.

The notice indicates that Mr. Williams is arguing that the

Court did not review the merits of his Motion to Stay (doc. 45).

The Court did address the merits of his motion and explained

that it does not possess the authority to stay a ruling of the
Eleventh Circuit.

(Doc. 46.) Because he has failed to present a

non-frivolous
IFP

issue for appeal,

Mr.

the

the

appeal

is DENIED.

Although

Court

same motion to appeal

two

Williams's motion to

separate

First,

and one

treats

IFP,

entries

entries could be

case,

the

interpreted as

be

denied.

neither would provide a non-frivolous

issue

for

appeal,

requirements.

that

as

would

53)

In

docket

each

(doc.

motions.

the

two

would fail to provide the necessary financial

Furthermore,

construing

the

two

entries

as

separate requests would mean that Mr. Williams is attempting to

appeal

the Court's

ruling on his motion for reconsideration,

which the Court had not yet addressed at the time he filed his

appeal.

Accordingly,

if the two entries are

intended to be

separate motions, the Court DENIES both.

ORDER ENTERED
February,

at

Augusta,

Georgia

this

J^Qpr*^ day

of

2016.

DAL

HALL

UNITED/STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
*N

DISTRICT OF GEORGIA