Jefferson v. Williams

Filing 22

ORDER granting 21 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis filed by Robert Jefferson. Signed by Judge David W. Dugan on 12/20/2022. (arm)

Case 3:20-cv-00595-DWD Document 22 Filed 12/20/22 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #187

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ROBERT JEFFERSON,
Petitioner,
vs.
E. WILLIAMS,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 20-cv-595-DWD

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DUGAN, District Judge:
On November 2, 2022, the undersigned dismissed Petitioner Robert Jefferson’s
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 15). Now before
the Court is Petitioner’s motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (“IFP”) (Doc. 21).
A federal court may permit a party to proceed on appeal without full prepayment of fees provided the party is indigent and the appeal is taken in good faith. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) & (3); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3)(A); see also Walker v. O'Brien, 216 F.3d
626, 630–31 (7th Cir. 2000). “[T]o determine that an appeal is in good faith, a court need
only find that a reasonable person could suppose that the appeal has some merit.”
Walker, 216 F.3d at 632 (citing Lee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025, 1026 (7th Cir. 2000)). Bad
faith, on the other hand means that a party has appealed on a frivolous theory, one that
“no reasonable person could suppose to have any merit.” Lee, 209 F.3d at 1026. The
motion to proceed IFP must also be supported by an affidavit that: (1) shows the party’s
inability to pay or to give security for fees and costs; (2) claims an entitlement to redress;

1

Case 3:20-cv-00595-DWD Document 22 Filed 12/20/22 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #188

and (3) states the issues that the party intends to present on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P.
24(a)(1).
Here, a review of Petitioner’s motion confirms he is indigent. The remaining
issue, then, is whether his appeal is not clearly frivolous and taken in good faith. His
stated issue, while brief, provides: “[t]hat pursuant to Rehaif my 922(g) conviction
should be vacated.” (Doc. 21, p. 3).

Construing this statement broadly, Petitioner

intends to challenge the Court’s finding that Rehaif v. United States, 204 L. Ed. 2d 594
(June 21, 2019) does not provide a basis to vacate Petitioner’s conviction under 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1). While the Court remains convinced that its finding was appropriate in this
matter, the Court is unable to certify that this appeal is not taken in good faith.
Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion (Doc. 21) is GRANTED.

Petitioner is also

reminded, that “[a] litigant who proceeds in forma pauperis still owes the fees. If he wins,
the fees are shifted to the adversary as part of costs; if he loses, the fees are payable like
any other debt.” Thomas v. Zatecky, 712 F.3d 1004, 1005 (7th Cir. 2013).

The Clerk is

DIRECTED to send a copy of this Order to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 20, 2022
/s/ David W. Dugan
DAVID W. DUGAN
United States District Judge

2