Williams v. Louisiana et al

Filing 23

RULING : Defendant's 19 NOTICE of Appeal, to the extent it may be interpreted as a request for a certificate of appealibility, is DENIED. The 20 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis, is also DENIED. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 8/1/2017. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

MITCHELL WILLIAMS

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

16-93-SDD-EWD

LOUISIANA, ET.AL.

RULING
This matter is before the Court on the Defendant’s Notice of Appeal1 and Motion
for Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis.2
On August 10, 2016, the Court adopted the Report and Recommendations3 issued
by U.S. Magistrate Judge Wilder-Doomes.4 On August 10, 2016, the Court also entered
a Judgment5 dismissing the matter with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Defendant then filed a Notice of Appeal6 and Motion for Leave to Appeal In Forma
Pauperis7 now before the Court.
To the extent that the Defendant's Notice of Appeal may be characterized as a
request for a certificate of appealability, 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) provides that, “[u]nless a
circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an appeal may not be taken to

1

Rec. Doc. No. 19.
Rec. Doc. No. 20.
3
Rec. Doc. No. 13.
4
Rec. Doc. No. 17.
5
Rec. Doc. No. 18.
6
Rec. Doc. No. 19.
7
Rec. Doc. No. 20.
2

40425 
Page 1 of 3 

the court of appeals from ... the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.” Under
this statute, in order to obtain a certificate of appealability, the Defendant must make a
substantial showing of the denial of a federal right.8 In addition, he must also show that
the issues presented are debatable among jurists of reason, that a court could resolve
the issues in a different manner, or that the questions presented are sufficient to warrant
encouragement to proceed further.9 Upon a review of this matter, the Court finds that the
Defendant has not made the requisite substantial showing of the denial of a federal right.
Moreover, the Court does not find that the issues in this case are likely to be debatable
among jurists of reason such that a court could resolve this matter differently. Thus, the
Defendant's request for a Certificate of Appealability shall be denied.
Further, the Defendant seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis in connection
with his appeal. However, as noted, 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) provides that “an appeal may
not be taken” in the absence of the granting by the Court of a certificate of appealability.
In light of the denial by this Court of the Defendant's request for a certificate of
appealability, the motion to appeal in forma pauperis must also be denied.
Finally, and in the alternative, because the Court finds that the Defendant has not
demonstrated a non-frivolous issue for appeal, the Court concludes that the appeal is not
taken in good faith and that the Defendant is, therefore, not authorized to proceed in forma
pauperis in connection therewith.10 Accordingly,

8

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 103 S.Ct. 3383, 77 L.Ed.2d 1090 (1983); Sawyers v. Collins, 986 F.2d
1493 (5th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 933, 113 S.Ct. 2405, 124 L.Ed.2d 300 (1993).
10
See Fed. R.App. P. 24(a); United States v. Marion, 79 Fed.Appx. 46 (5th Cir. 2003).
9

40425 
Page 2 of 3 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendant's Notice of Appeal,11 to the extent
that it may be interpreted as a request for a certificate of appealability, is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendant's Motion for Leave to
Appeal in Forma Pauperis12 is also DENIED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana on August 1, 2017.

S

JUDGE SHELLY D. DICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

11
12

Rec. Doc. No. 19.
Rec. Doc. No. 20.

40425 
Page 3 of 3