Mance v. United States Parole Commission

Filing 22

OPINION: Mance's application states that on appeal, he intends to raise the issue that "[t]he United States Parole Commission failured [sic] to credit time served on federal parole." See ECF No. 19, filed June 12, 2017. However, Mance& #039;s claims lack merit, as the United States Parole Commission was acting within its statutory authority in enacting 28 C. F. R. § 2. 52(c) (2) and in applying it to Mance's parole time. Therefore, pursuant to 28 U. S.C. § 1915(1) (3 ), Mance's appeal cannot be taken in good faith and his application to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and as further set forth in this order.It is so ordered.Motions terminating: 19 MOTION for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. filed by Victor Mance. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 6/18/2017) (ap)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

------------------------------------x
VICTOR MANCE ,
Petitioner,

16 Civ. 7249

-against-

OPINION

UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION ,

fD@CUMENT

~, USDC SDNY

Respondent .

------------------------------------x

, i FLECTRONICALLY FTI .ED
i
! DOC#:
~~~.....--.+-,~-+-----

Sweet, D.J.

' DATE FILED:

Petitioner Victor Mance ("Mance" or the "Petitioner")
has applied for leave to appeal in forma pauperis this Court ' s
denial of his motions to reopen judgment and for "bail release."
For the following reasons, the application is denied.

Prior Proceedings

The facts and prior proceedings in this case are set
forth in this Court ' s May 17 , 2017 Opinion denying Mance ' s 28
U. S.C.

§

2241 petition to correct the United States Parole

Commission's decision to revoke his parole . See ECF No. 17.

1

On June 12 , 2017 , Mance filed an appeal of the May 17 ,
2017 Opinion with the Second Circuit . The same day , Mance
submitted the instant appl i cation to proceed in forma pauperis
on appeal .

Applicable Standards

"The decision of whether to grant a request to proceed
in forma pauper i s i s l eft to the District Court ' s discretion
under 28 U. S . C .
that:

§

1915 .

The Court ' s discretion is limited in

' An appeal may not be taken in forma pauper i s if the trial

court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith. ' "
Fridman v . City of New York , 195 F . Supp. 2d 534 , 536 (S . D.N . Y.
2002)

(quoting 28 U. S . C.

§

19 1 5 (a) (3))

(internal citations

omitted); see also Fed. R. App. P . 24 (a) (3) (A)
may proceed on appeal in f orma pauperis .
court

("A party

. unless the distrct

certifies that the appea l i s not taken in good faith
. ") .

The standard for "good faith " in pursuing an appeal

is an objective one .
438 , 445 (1962)

See Coppedge v . United States , 369 U. S .

("We consider a defendant ' s good faith .

demonstrated when he seeks appel l ate review of an issue not
frivolous ." ); see also Linden v. Harper & Row Publishers , 490 F.
Supp . 297, 300 (S . D.N . Y. 1980)

(applying objective " good faith"

standard to civil case) .

2

Mance ' s application states that on appeal , he intends
to raise the issue that "[t]he United States Parole Commission
failured [sic] to credit time served on federal parole. " See ECF
No. 19 , filed June 12, 2017 .

However, Mance ' s claims lack

merit , as the United States Parole Commission was acting within
its statutory authority in enacting 28 C . F . R.

§

2 . 52(c) (2) and

in applying it to Mance's parole time . Therefore , pursuant to 28
U. S.C .

§

1915(1) (3) , Mance's appeal cannot be taken in good

faith and his application to proceed in forma pauperis is
denied .

It is so ordered.

New York, NY
June

/

fp

2017

U . S . D.J.

3