Lawson v. Vannoy et al

Filing 20

ORDER AND REASONS denying 18 Motion for Certificate of Appealability; denying 19 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 11/20/2017. (cg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CLEVELAND LAWSON

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 16-16909

DARRYL VANNOY

SECTION “R” (4)
ORDER

Petitioner Cleveland Lawson requests a certificate of appealability 1 and
moves the Court to permit him to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.2
The Court denied a certificate of appealability in its October 24, 2017 order
denying habeas relief.3 Because Lawson’s arguments lack good faith, the
Court also denies the motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
A claimant may proceed with an appeal in forma pauperis if he meets
three requirements.

First, the claimant must submit “an affidavit that

includes a statement . . . that [he] is unable to pay such fees or give security
therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Based on this information, the district
court must determine whether the costs of appeal would cause an undue
financial hardship. See Prows v. Kastner, 842 F.2d 138, 140 (5th Cir. 1998).

1
2
3

R. Doc. 18.
R. Doc. 19.
R. Doc. 15.

Second, the claimant must provide the court with an affidavit that “states the
issues that the party intends to present on appeal.”

Fed. R. App. P.

24(a)(1)(C); accord 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) (“Such affidavit shall state the
nature of the . . . appeal and affiant’s belief that the person is entitled to
redress.”). Third, the claimant’s appeal must be “taken in good faith.” 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(4)(B). “Good faith is demonstrated
when a party seeks appellate review of any issue ‘not frivolous.’” Howard v.
King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (citing Coppedge v. United States,
369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962)). Good faith “does not require that probable
success be shown,” but rather “is limited to whether the appeal involves legal
points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” United States
v. Arroyo-Jurado, 477 F. App’x 150, 151 (5th Cir. 2012). “A complaint is
frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Kingery v.
Hale, 73 F. App’x 755, 755 (5th Cir. 2003).
Lawson’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis indicates that his
inmate drawing account has a balance of $18.06, his inmate savings account
has a balance of $236.06, and he has no other assets. 4 Although Lawson’s
motion suggests his inability to pay fees related to his appeal, his motion
must be denied because the arguments he intends to raise on appeal do not

4

R. Doc. 19.
2

have an arguable basis either in law or in fact and are therefore frivolous. As
explained in the Court’s order denying habeas relief, Lawson’s petition must
be denied because it is time-barred under the Antiterrorism and Effective
Death Penalty Act. 5 In his application for a certificate of appealability,
Lawson simply rehashes the same arguments he made before the Magistrate
Judge and this Court. 6 Lawson fails to address the statute of limitations issue
in his notice of appeal, his request for a certificate of appealability, or his
motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
For the foregoing reasons, Lawson’s motion for leave to appeal in
forma pauperis is DENIED. As stated in the Court’s October 24, 2017 order,
the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability.

20th
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of November, 2017.

_____________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5
6

R. Doc. 15.
R. Doc. 18.
3