Deciantis v. Coyne-Fague
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
C.A. No. 20-004 WES
Anthony DeCiantis filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, ECF No. 1, challenging two state court
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
Id. at 4-5 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)).
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
“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
proceed in forma pauperis in the district-court action”).
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
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,
After having carefully reviewed the relevant papers, and
having heard no objections, the Court ACCEPTS the report and
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
Date: January 8, 2021
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?