EADS v. USA
ENTRY ON PENDING MOTIONS. ORDER denying as moot 34 Motion for order of transcript; denying 26 Motion to supplement; denying 28 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis (USCA #17-2193). (S.O.). Copy to Petitioner via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 7/11/2017. (MAC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
CHRISTOPHER JUSTIN EADS,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Case No. 1:14-cv-1169-TWP-DML
ENTRY CONCERNING PENDING MOTIONS
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Christopher Justin Eads (“Eads”) Motion to
Supplement [Dkt. 26], Motion to Proceed on Appeal in Forma Pauperis [Dkt. 28] and Motion for
Order of Transcript Information Sheet [Dkt. 34]. The Court will address each motion in turn.
Eads first motion asks the court to allow him to supplement his memorandum in support
of his petition for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. However, on May, 17, 2017 the Court issued an
Order denying Eads § 2255 petition and entered final judgment on that same date. [Dkt. 22 and
23]. Eads motion to supplement his § 2255 petition with additional “corroborating evidence in
support of his ineffective assistance of counsel claims,” was filed on May 30, 2017. The Motion
to Supplement [Dkt. 26] is denied because the action is closed and, more importantly, the Court
gave comprehensive consideration to Eads’ arguments that he had been denied the effective
assistance of counsel.
On June 8, 2017, Eads filed a motion seeking leave to proceed on appeal without
prepayment of the appellate fees of $455.00. An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the
trial court certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915; see Coppedge v.
United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962). “Good faith” within the meaning of § 1915 must be judged by
an objective, not a subjective, standard. See id.
Eads contends that the district court erred when it appointed standby counsel and failed to
consider or address his conflict issues with standby counsel. He further alleges “the district court
applied incorrect rule of law” and, his ineffective assistance claims were substantial. Eads has
failed to present an objectively reasonable argument that the disposition of his §2255 motion was
erroneous. In pursuing an appeal, therefore, Eads “is acting in bad faith . . . [because] to sue in
bad faith means merely to sue 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). A claim or argument is frivolous when it appears the factual allegations are clearly baseless
or the legal theories are indisputably meritless. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989).
Accordingly, his appeal is not taken in good faith, and his request for leave to proceed on appeal
in forma pauperis [Dkt. 28] is denied.
Finally, Eads Motion for Order of Transcript Information Sheet [Dkt. 34] is denied as
moot because the Court designates the entire record in this action and in the underlying criminal
record as the record on appeal.
Electronic distribution to counsel of record via CM/ECF and by U.S. mail to:
CHRISTOPHER JUSTIN EADS
TUCSON - USP
TUCSON U.S. PENITENTIARY
P.O. BOX 24550
TUCSON, AZ 85734
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?