Carter v. United States of America

Filing 31

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 30 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis on Appeal filed by Petitioner Quitman Carter motion is DENIED..IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court will not issue a certificate of appealability, as petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of afederal constitutional right. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 3/31/14. (MRS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
QUITMAN CARTER,
Petitioner,
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:07CV49 CDP

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before me on petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis on appeal and for a certificate of appealability. Petitioner pleaded
guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced the mandatory
minimum sentence of 15 years on February 13, 2006. I denied his § 2255 motion
on December 12, 2007 because it was barred by the statute’s one year limitations
period. Petitioner did not attempt to appeal the denial of § 2255 relief until March
4, 2013. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed his appeal as untimely on
March 7, 2013. The United States Supreme Court denied petitioner’s writ of
certiorari on June 24, 2013. On October 21, 2013, petitioner filed a “Motion to
Reopen Case” seeking to reopen his § 2255 case. He also filed a “Second Motion
to Supplement Rule 60(b)(6)” asking for the same relief. I denied these motions
on February 6, 2014, and declined to reconsider my decision by Memorandum and

Order dated March 6, 2014. Petitioner now seeks to appeal those decisions in
forma pauperis.
IFP status will be denied if the Court finds that petitioner’s appeal is not
taken “in good faith.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3). To
determine whether an appeal is taken in good faith, the Court must decide whether
the claims to be raised on appeal are factually or legally frivolous. Coppedge v.
United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). An appeal is frivolous “where it
lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 325 (1989). As I have explained numerous times, petitioner pleaded guilty
with full knowledge that he was an Armed Career Criminal facing a mandatory
minimum sentence of 15 years, and none of his many filings casts any doubt on
the correctness of his sentence. Petitioner is not entitled to relief, and he has
already been denied relief by me, the Eighth Circuit, and the Supreme Court.
Because I find that petitioner’s appeal lacks an arguable basis in law and in fact, I
cannot find that it was taken in good faith. As such, I must deny petitioner’s
motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis.
Finally, because petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial
of a federal constitutional right, this Court will not issue a certificate of
appealability. See Cox v. Norris, 133 F.3d 565, 569 (8th Cir. 1997) (citing Flieger

-2-

v. Delo, 16 F.3d 878, 882-83 (8th Cir. 1994)) (substantial showing must be
debatable among reasonable jurists, reasonably subject to a different outcome on
appeal, or otherwise deserving of further proceedings).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for leave to appeal in
forma pauperis [#30] is denied as the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal would not be taken in good faith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court will not issue a certificate of
appealability, as petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a
federal constitutional right.

CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 31st day of March, 2014.

-3-