Parker v. Martin et al

Filing 31

ORDER denying 28 Motion for Certificate of Appealability; denying 28 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 6/2/2014. (mb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

ALVIN PARKER,
Petitioner,
v.
TERRY MARTIN, Warden,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-13-1365-D

ORDER
Before the Court is Petitioner’s Request for Certificate of Appealability and Order for Leave
to Proceed on Appeal In Forma Pauperis [Doc. No. 28], filed pro se on May 27, 2014. On the same
date, Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal from the Order of May 20, 2014, which denied a motion
for relief from the Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
In the Order of May 8, 2014 [Doc. No. 23], which adopted a magistrate judge’s Report and
Recommendation and granted Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss Second or Successive Habeas
Petition, the Court considered the question of whether to issue a certificate of appealability (COA)
and answered it adversely to Petitioner. The denial of a COA was included in the Judgment. Even
liberally construed, Petitioner’s current filing provides no basis to revisit the prior ruling.
Further, although the caption of Petitioner’s filing suggests a request to proceed on appeal
without prepayment of filing fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, Petitioner fails to include any
financial information or to comply with the requirements of the statute. Petitioner has not previously
requested or received in forma pauperis (IFP) status in this case. The record contains no financial
affidavit or information from which to determine that Petitioner “is unable to pay such fees or give

security therefor.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Accordingly, the Court finds that Petitioner’s
request to appeal IFP should be denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner’s Request [Doc. No. 28] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 2nd day of June, 2014.

2