Sumerlin v. Lafler

Filing 18

ORDER denying 17 petitioner's Motion for Certificate of Appealability but granting permission to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh (MBea)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ARTHUR SUMERLIN,
Petitioner,

Civil No. 09-CV-10459
Honorable George Caram Steeh

v.
BLAINE LAFLER,
Respondent.
/
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY [dkt. # 17] BUT GRANTING
PERMISSION TO PROCEED ON APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Before the court is Petitioner's motion for a certificate of appealability. On June 6,
2011, this court denied Petitioner’s application for habeas corpus relief, finding in part that
some of Petitioner’s claims were barred by his procedural default in the state courts.
Petitioner did not attempt to appeal this decision, but instead, he filed a motion for relief
from judgment, arguing that his claims were not defaulted. This Court denied the motion
on July 23, 2013. Petitioner seeks permission to appeal this decision to the Court of
Appeals.
A habeas petitioner is required to obtain a certificate of appealability before he can
appeal the denial of a 60(b) motion for relief from judgment which seeks to challenge the
judgment in a habeas case. See United States v. Hardin, 481 F. 3d 924, 926 (6th Cir.
2007). To obtain a certificate of appealability, a prisoner must make a substantial showing
of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), which the United States
Supreme Court has construed to mean that an applicant must show that reasonable jurists
-1-

could debate that the petition could have been resolved differently or that the claims raised
deserved further review." Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003).
Reasonable jurists would not conclude that the issues raised in Petitioner's motion
for relief from judgment deserve further review. As explained in the order denying that
motion, Petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment filed in the state trial court was denied
on procedural grounds when the trial court specifically relied on Michigan Court Rule
6.508(d)(3) in denying relief. Petitioner’s motion does not explain how the Court’s analysis
is open to debate among reasonable jurists. Therefore, a certificate of appealability is
DENIED.
The standard for obtaining IFP status is less burdensome. A court may grant IFP
status if the Court finds that an appeal is being taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(3); Fed. R.App.24 (a); Foster v. Ludwick, 208 F. Supp. 2d 750, 765 (E.D. Mich.
2002). Although the court finds that Petitioner's substantive arguments have no merit, this
Court does not find that petitioner's appeal was not undertaken in good faith and will grant
his request for leave to appeal in forma pauperis.
Based upon the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis
is GRANTED.
Dated: October 31, 2013
s/George Caram Steeh
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
October 31, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary mail and also
on Arthur Sumerlin #498164, Ryan Correctional Facility,
17600 Ryan Road, Detroit, MI 48212.
s/Barbara Radke
Deputy Clerk

-3-