Witherspoon v. Prelesnik

Filing 15

ORDER DENYING PETITIONERS MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL 13 . Signed by District Judge Gershwin A. Drain. (TBan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DEANDRE WITHERSPOON,
Petitioner,

Case Number: 2:13-CV-13295
HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

v.
DEWAYNE BURTON,
Respondent.
__________________________/
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION
TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL
This matter is presently before the Court on Petitioner Anthony Williams’ Motion to Proceed
In Forma Pauperis on Appeal [#13] with respect to his appeal of this Court’s denial of his petition
for writ of habeas corpus. The Court notes that Petitioner has attached a Certificate of Prisoner
Institutional/Trust Fund Account Activity signed by the custodian at the correctional facility in
which he is housed. The computer printout typically attached to such Certificate was not attached;
as such, technically, Petitioner’s Motion is incomplete. Even if the Court assumes that Petitioner’s
financial circumstances would dictate a finding of indigency, however, for the reasons set forth
below, the Court concludes that Petitioner is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis with respect
to the present appeal. As such, the Court need not defer a decision on Petitioner’s motion until such
time as he provides all of the necessary financial documentation.
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(1) provides that a party to a district-court action
who desires to appeal in forma pauperis must file a motion in the district court. An appeal may not
be taken in forma pauperis if the court determines that it is not taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(3). “[T]he standard governing the issuance of a certificate of appealability is more
demanding than the standard for determining whether an appeal is in good faith.” U.S. v. Cahill-

Masching, 2002 WL 15701, * 3 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 4, 2002). “[T]o determine that an appeal is in good
faith, a court need only find that a reasonable person could suppose that the appeal has some merit.”
Walker v. O’Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 631 (7th Cir. 2000). The Court finds that “a reasonable person
would not suppose that the present appeal has [any] merit.”
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on
Appeal [#13] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Gershwin A Drain
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: October 7, 2015