Adkins v. Wright

Filing 51

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr on 6/20/2013: For the reasons stated below, Petitioner's application for leave to file his appeal in forma pauperis 47 is respectfully denied. The Clerk is directed to transmit a copy of this order to the Clerk of the Court of Appeals. Mailed notice(tbk, )

Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

Robert M. Dow, Jr.

CASE NUMBER

06 C 4834

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

6/20/2013

Adkins vs. Akpore

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

For the reasons stated below, Petitioner’s application for leave to file his appeal in forma pauperis [47] is
respectfully denied. The Clerk is directed to transmit a copy of this order to the Clerk of the Court of Appeals.

O[ For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT
On May 24, 2013, the Court issued a memorandum opinion and order [44] denying Petitioner Anthony
Adkins petition for writ of habeas corpus and declining to certify any issues for appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2).
Petitioner now asks the Court to grant him in forma pauperis status for his appeal of the denial of a writ of
habeas corpus [47]. The standard governing the issuance of a certificate of appealability is more demanding
than the standard for allowing a petitioner to proceed to appeal in forma pauperis. Moore v. Pemberton, 110
F.3d 22, 24 (7th Cir. 1997); see also Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983) (noting that the standard
for obtaining a certificate of probable cause, the predecessor to the certificate of appealability, is higher than
the one used to evaluate good faith under 28 U.S.C. § 1915); Pate v. Stevens, 163 F.3d 437, 439 (7th Cir.
1998) (citing Barefoot and warning district courts not to apply an inappropriately high standard in making
good faith determinations). To issue a certificate of appealability, a court must find that the petitioner has
made “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Williams v.
Parke, 133 F.3d 971, 975 (7th Cir. 1997). In contrast, to determine that a petitioner should be given leave to
proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, a “good faith” standard applies, pursuant to which the district court
need only find that a reasonable person could suppose that the appeal has some merit. Lee, 209 F.3d at 1026.
Petitioner’s habeas petition presented seventeen issues. Three did not allege violations of federal law, twelve
were procedurally defaulted, and two were considered on their merits. As the Court explained in its opinion
addressing each of his claims, none have merit, nor could any reasonable person suppose that any have merit.
In that sense, then, his claims are frivolous, and thus the Court cannot conclude that Petitioner’s appeal is in
good faith. Accordingly, the Court denies Petitioner’s application for leave to appeal in forma pauperis.
As the Seventh Circuit previously advised Petitioner, in view of this order denying Petitioner’s in forma
pauperis motion, he must either pay the docketing fee or renew his motion to proceed on appeal in forma
pauperis. If the motion is renewed in the Seventh Circuit, it must comply with Fed. R. App. P. 24.
06C4834 Adkins vs. Akpore

Page 1 of 2

STATEMENT
In sum, Petitioner’s application for leave to file his appeal in forma pauperis [47] is respectfully denied. The
Clerk is directed to transmit a copy of this order to the Clerk of the Court of Appeals.

06C4834 Adkins vs. Akpore

Page 2 of 2