Deciantis v. Coyne-Fague

Filing 25

ORDER adopting 22 Report and Recommendations, and, denying 19 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis, denying 20 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis, and denying 21 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. So Ordered by District Judge William E. Smith on 1/8/2021. (Jackson, Ryan)

Case 1:20-cv-00004-WES-LDA Document 25 Filed 01/08/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 304

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
______________________________

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
PATRICIA COYNE-FAGUE,
)
)
Defendant.
)
______________________________)
ANTHONY DECIANTIS,

C.A. No. 20-004 WES

ORDER
Anthony DeCiantis filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, ECF No. 1, challenging two state court
convictions.
June 18, 2020.

This court denied and dismissed the petition on
See Mem. and Order, ECF No. 10.

With regards to

the conviction in case P1-1983-0418A, the Court determined that
the petition was barred as a second or successive petition
lacking authorization from the Court of Appeals.
n.1 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2244(3)(A)).

Id. at 3-4 &

As to his conviction in

case PI-1983-0024C, the Court concluded that the petition was
time-barred.

Id. at 4-5 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)).

The

Court subsequently denied DeCiantis’s Motion for a Certificate
of Appealability, ECF No. 15:
Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section
2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, this

Case 1:20-cv-00004-WES-LDA Document 25 Filed 01/08/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 305

Court hereby finds that this case is not appropriate
for the issuance of a certificate of appealability
because DeCiantis has failed to make a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right as to
any claim, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). In
addition,
DeCiantis
has
not
demonstrated
that
“jurists of reason would find it debatable whether
the district court was correct in its procedural
ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
July 24, 2020 Order, ECF No. 16 (emphasis in original).
In his attempt to appeal the dismissal of his Petition,
DeCiantis filed with this Court three Motions for Leave to Appeal
in forma pauperis, ECF Nos. 19, 20, and 21.

See Fed. R. App. P.

24(a) (requiring “a party to a district-court action who desires
to appeal in forma pauperis [to] file a motion in the district
court[,]”

unless

the

party

“was

[previously]

permitted

proceed in forma pauperis in the district-court action”).

to
On

December 1, 2020, Magistrate Judge Lincoln D. Almond issued a
Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 22, recommending that this
Court deny the Motions for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis
because the appeal is groundless and therefore not taken in good
faith.

See R. & R. 1 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and Lyons

v. Wall, No. 04-380, 2007 WL 2067661 at *1 (D.R.I. July 13,
2007)).
After having carefully reviewed the relevant papers, and
having heard no objections, the Court ACCEPTS the report and

2

Case 1:20-cv-00004-WES-LDA Document 25 Filed 01/08/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 306

ADOPTS the recommendations and reasoning set forth therein.
Accordingly, the three Motions for Leave to Appeal in forma
pauperis, ECF Nos. 19, 20, and 21, are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

William E. Smith
District Judge
Date: January 8, 2021

3