Williams v. Warden Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Filing
13
OPINION AND ORDER denying 11 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis and request for certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge George C. Smith on 9/26/2016. (kk)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification [Brian L Williams @ 1693 King Ave, Columbus OH 43214])
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
BRIAN L. WILLIAMS,
Petitioner,
CASE NO. 2:16-CV-666
JUDGE GEORGE C. SMITH
MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAVERS
v.
CHARLOTTE JENKINS, WARDEN,
CHILLICOTHE CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTION,
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER
On August 18, 2016, Judgment was entered dismissing the instant petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 9). This matter is before the Court on
Petitioner’s September 19, 2016, Notice of Appeal, which the Court construes as a request for a
certificate of appealability, and Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 10,
11).1 For the reasons that follow, Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability and
Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 10, 11) are DENIED.
The Court dismissed the habeas corpus petition as failing raising an issue that fails to
provide a basis for relief and barred by the one-year statute of limitations provided for in 28
U.S.C. § 2244(d). Petitioner seeks a certificate of appealability.
“In contrast to an ordinary civil litigant, a state prisoner who seeks a writ of habeas
corpus in federal court holds no automatic right to appeal from an adverse decision by a district
court.”
Jordan v. Fisher, -- U.S. --. --, 135 S. Ct. 2647, 2650 (2015); 28 U.S.C. §
1
Under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), an appeal must be filed within thirty days after entry of
judgment of the order being appealed; however, because that date, i.e., September 17, 2016, fell
on a Saturday, Petitioner had until the following Monday, or September 19, 2016, within which
to file the appeal. See Rule 26(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
2253(c)(1)(requiring a habeas petitioner to obtain a certificate of appealability in order to
appeal.) The petitioner must establish the substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This standard is a codification of Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S.
880 (1983). Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (recognizing codification of Barefoot
in 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)). To make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,
a petitioner must show “that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree
that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented
were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack, 529 U.S. at 484 (quoting
Barefoot, 463 U.S., at 893 n.4).
Where the Court dismisses a claim on procedural grounds, however, a certificate of
appealability “should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find it
debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that
jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural
ruling.” Id. Thus, there are two components to determining whether a certificate of appealability
should issue when a claim is dismissed on procedural grounds: “one directed at the underlying
constitutional claims and one directed at the district court's procedural holding.” Id. at 485. The
court may first “resolve the issue whose answer is more apparent from the record and
arguments.” Id.
Petitioner has failed to establish that reasonable jurists would debate whether the Court
correctly dismissed Petitioner’s claims. Petitioner asserts that the state courts improperly denied
his petition for post-conviction relief, which issue plainly does not warrant federal habeas corpus
relief. See Wright v. Lazaroff, 643 F. Supp. 2d 971, 990-91 (S.D. Ohio 2009) (errors in state
post-conviction proceedings do not provide a basis for federal habeas corpus relief); 28 U.S.C.
2
2254(a). He additionally challenges a final judgment of conviction from September 2008.
However, he waited approximately six years and nine months, until July 1, 2016, to execute this
habeas corpus petition. He took no action whatsoever regarding his claims until November
2014, after the statute of limitations had long since expired, when he filed a post-conviction
petition in the state trial court. Under these circumstances, the record fails to support equitable
tolling of the statute of limitations. See Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 650 (2010)(A
petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling only if he shows “1) that he has been pursuing his rights
diligently, and 2) that some extraordinary circumstances stood in his way” and prevented timely
filing)(citing Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2008)).
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 filedcertifies 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,
3
“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. Michigan, July 17, 2006).
The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that the appeal is not in good faith.
Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability and Motion for Leave to Appeal in
forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 10, 11) therefore are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ George C. Smith
___________
GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
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?