Pattison v. Hulett et al

Filing 32

ORDER vacating order of certificate of appealability, denying 25 MOTION for Certificate of Appealability filed by Debra Sue Pattison, denying 27 MOTION for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis filed by Debra Sue Pattison, granting 24 MOTION to Vacate 22 Order for a certificate of appealability filed by Sheryl Thompson. Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 8/21/2013. (kar)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DEBRA SUE PATTISON,
Petitioner,
v.
SHERYL THOMPSON,
Respondent.

No. 10-cv-625-DRH-SCW
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

HERNDON, Chief Judge:
Pending now before the Court is respondent’s motion to vacate order for a
certificate of appealability (Doc. 24). Also before the Court are petitioner’s motion
for a certificate of appealability (Doc. 25) and motion for leave to appeal in forma
pauperis (Doc. 27). For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS respondent’s
motion to vacate, VACATES the order for certificate of appealability, and DENIES
petitioner’s motion for certificate of appealability and motion for leave to appeal in
forma pauperis.
Petitioner pled guilty to one count of predatory criminal sexual assault in
the Circuit Court of White County. She was sentenced to twenty years, currently
serving her term at Lincoln Correctional Center. On August 16, 2010, petitioner
filed her petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This
Court denied Pattison’s petition, but issued a certificate of appealability on
petitioner’s second claim. On June 26, 2013, respondent filed a motion to vacate
the certificate of appealability.

Respondent argues that for a certificate of
Page 1 of 4

appealability to be granted, a substantial federal constitutional issue must be
present, and Pattison’s claim is non-cognizable.
A certificate of appealability may be issued only if the prisoner has at least
one substantial constitutional question for appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The
certificate must identify each substantial constitutional question.

Davis v.

Borgen, 349 F.3d 1027, 1029 (7th Cir. 2003).
Here, Pattison claimed that there was a second medical report on her
minor victim that would have shown the allegation of abuse to be unfounded. The
Court noted that Pattison’s claim is only for a state law claim and not a federal
question, and that Pattison never argued that her claim raised constitutional
issues.

Thus, the Court erroneously granted petitioner a certificate of

appealability on this claim, and it now VACATES that order. Further the Court
DENIES petitioner’s motion to issue a certificate of appealability, for the reasons
stated above.
As to petitioner’s motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (Doc. 27),
the Court finds the motion is without merit.

“An 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).

A plaintiff is “acting in bad faith in the more

common legal meaning of the term . . . [when she sues] . . . on the basis of a
frivolous claim, which is to say a claim that no reasonable person could suppose
to have any merit.”

Lee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025, 1026 (7th Cir. 2000).

Further, “an appeal in a frivolous suit cannot be ‘in good faith’ under § 1915(a)(3),

Page 2 of 4

because ‘good faith’ must be viewed objectively.” Moran v. Sandalle, 218 F.3d
647, 650 (7th Cir. 2000), See also Lee, 209 F.3d at 1026; Tolefree v. Cudahy,
49 F.3d 1243, 1244 (7th Cir. 1995) (“[T]he granting of leave to appeal in forma
pauperis from the dismissal of a frivolous suit is presumptively erroneous and
indeed self-contradictory.”)
The Court dismissed defendant’s petition for habeas relief because she
failed to raise three of her four claims at the state level, and having done so, failed
to demonstrate that the failure of this Court to consider these claims would result
in any prejudice or fundamental miscarriage of justice. As to her fourth claim,
the Court dismissed it because it is based on a question of state law and thus,
cannot form the basis for federal habeas corpus relief. See Estelle , McGuire,
502 U.S. 62, 67 (1991). Defendant failed to make a substantial argument that the
Court erred in resolving defendant’s non-constitutional questions, and therefore
denying her request for a certificate of appealability.
Thus, the Court CERTIFIES that this appeal is not taken in good faith;
accordingly, the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is
DENIED. Pattison shall tender the appellate filing and docketing fee of $455 to
the Clerk of the Court in this District, or he may reapply to the Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
The Court hereby GRANTS respondent’s motion to vacate Pattison’s
certificate of appealability (Doc. 24), VACATES the grant of a certificate of
appealability on Pattison’s second claim, DENIES Pattison’s motion to issue a

Page 3 of 4

certificate of appealability (Doc. 25) and DENIES Pattison’s motion for leave to
appeal in forma pauperis (Doc. 27).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 21st day of August, 2013.

Digitally signed by
David R. Herndon
Date: 2013.08.21
16:01:08 -05'00'
Chief Judge
United States District Court

Page 4 of 4