Sareini v. Burnett et al

Filing 81

ORDER denying 77 MOTION for Certificate of Appealability and denying as moot 80 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis filed by Ali Sareini., Motions terminated: 77 MOTION for Certificate of Appealability filed by Ali Sareini. Signed by District Judge Thomas L. Ludington. (SGam)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
ALI SAREINI,
Plaintiff,

Case Number 08-13961
Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

v.
MICHAEL MARTIN,
Defendant.
_______________________________________/
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED
WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FEES AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
On September 23, 2008, pro se prisoner Plaintiff Ali Sareini was granted leave to proceed
without prepayment of fees in this action. ECF No. 3. On January 22, 2010, the Court entered an
order adopting in part and rejecting in part Magistrate Judge Virginia Morgan’s report and
recommendation, overruling Plaintiff’s objections, granting in part and denying in part Defendant’s
objections, and granting in part and denying in part Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. ECF
No. 72. The Court’s opinion and order dismissed Plaintiff’s religious property claim, Plaintiff’s
religious holiday banquet claim under the Free Exercise Clause, and Plaintiff’s Equal Protection
claim, resulting in only his religious diet claim regarding cross-contamination of the vegetarian meal
options remaining. On April 14, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court
denied on September 1, 2011. ECF Nos. 74, 75. Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s application to
proceed without prepayment of fees on appeal. ECF No. 80. Plaintiff was permitted to proceed
without prepayment of fees in this Court; thus, further authorization is not required. Fed. R. App.
P. 24(a)(3). Plaintiff may proceed without prepayment of fees on appeal.
Plaintiff has also filed a motion for a certificate of appealability. A certificate of appealability

is required only in certain types of cases, typically habeas corpus proceedings brought pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §§ 2254 and 2255. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). A certificate of appealability is not required,
however, to appeal a district court order denying relief for claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Johnson v. CCA-Northeast Oh. Corr. Ctr., 21 F. App’x 330, 332 (6th Cir. 2001).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed without prepayment of
fees (ECF No. 80) is DENIED AS MOOT.
It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for a certificate of appealability (ECF No.77)
is DENIED.

s/Thomas L. Ludington
THOMAS L. LUDINGTON
United States District Judge
Dated: December 14, 2011

PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each
attorney or party of record herein by electronic means and upon Ali Sareini, #203519,
at Newberry Correctional Facility, 3001 Newberry Avenue, Newberry, MI 49868 by
first class U.S. mail on December 14, 2011.
s/Tracy A. Jacobs
TRACY A. JACOBS

-2-