Whitt v. Warden Lebanon Correctional Institution
Filing
65
OPINION AND ORDER denying 60 Motion ; denying 63 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis; deferring ruling on 64 Motion. Signed by Judge James L Graham on 9/9/2014. (ds)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
STEPHEN WHITT,
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-731
JUDGE JAMES L. GRAHAM
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN, LEBANON
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER
On August 7, 2014, final judgment was entered dismissing the instant petition for a writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter now is before the Court on
Petitioner’s August 15, 2014, Notice of Appeal, which this Court construes as a request for a
certificate of appealability, and his request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. (ECF Nos.
61, 63.) For the reasons that follow, Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability and his
request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (ECF Nos. 61, 63) are DENIED.
Petitioner’s Motion to Review Supplemental Brief and his request for transcripts (ECF
Nos. 60, 64) are also DENIED.
Petitioner asserts that the trial court lacked jurisdiction, his convictions are against the
manifest weight of the evidence and not supported by constitutionally sufficient evidence, he was
convicted in violation of the Fourth Amendment, denied effective assistance of counsel and the
right to a jury trial, and was improperly sentenced. The Court dismissed all of these claims as
procedurally defaulted or without merit.
Where a claim has been denied on the merits, a certificate of appealability may issue
where the petitioner establishes that “reasonable jurists could debate whether. . . the petition
should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to
deserve encouragement to proceed further.’”
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84
(2000)(citing 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 894 (1983)).
Where a claim has been dismissed on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability
shall issue where jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the Court was correct in its
procedural ruling that petitioner waived his claims of error, and whether petitioner has stated a
viable constitutional claim. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. at 484–85. Both of these showings
must be made before a court of appeals will entertain the appeal. Id.
This Court is not persuaded that Petitioner has met either of these standards here.
Petitioner's request for a certificate of appealability, therefore is DENIED.
Petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal also is DENIED. Pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (3), an appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the appeal is not taken
in good faith. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3)(A) also provides:
A party who was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in the
district-court action, or who was determined to be financially
unable to obtain an adequate defense in a criminal case, may
proceed on appeal in forma pauperis without further authorization,
unless:
(A) the district court-before or after the notice of
appeal is filed-certifies that the appeal is not
taken in good faith[.]
Id. In addressing this standard, another court has explained:
The good faith standard is an objective one. Coppedge v. United
States, 369 U.S. 438, 445, 82 S.Ct. 917, 8 L.Ed.2d 21 (1962). An
appeal is not taken in good faith if the issue presented is frivolous.
Id. Accordingly, it would be inconsistent for a district court to
determine that a complaint is too frivolous to be served, yet has
sufficient merit to support an appeal in forma pauperis. See
Williams v. Kullman, 722 F.2d 1048, 1050 n. 1 (2d Cir. 1983).
Frazier v. Hesson, 40 F.Supp.2d 957, 967 (W.D. Tenn. 1999). However,
“the 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).
Penny v. Booker, No. 05–70147, 2006 WL 2008523, at *1 (E.D. Mich., July 17, 2006).
The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that the appeal is not taken in good
faith. Petitioner's request for a certificate of appealability, and request to proceed in forma
pauperis on appeal (ECF Nos. 61, 63) are DENIED.
Petitioner’s Motion to Review Supplemental Brief and his request for transcripts (ECF
Nos. 60, 64) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: September 9, 2014
s/James L. Graham
JAMES L. GRAHAM
United States District Judge
.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?