Jamison v. Cox

Filing 33

ORDER denying 28 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by U.S. District Judge Karen E. Schreier on 10/04/2021. Mailed copy to Mr. Jamison via USPS. (VMM)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION RODERICK JAMISON, 4:20-CV-04201-KES Petitioner, vs. J.W. COX, in his capacity as Warden of Yankton Federal Prison Camp, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS Respondent. Petitioner, Roderick Jamison, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Docket 1. This court dismissed Jamison’s petition. Docket 25. Judgment was entered in favor of respondent on August 25, 2021. Docket 26. On September 2, 2021, Jamison filed a notice of appeal. Docket 27. He now moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and has included a prisoner trust account report. Dockets 28, 29. The filing-fee provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act do not apply to habeas corpus actions. Malave v. Hedrick, 271 F.3d 1139, 1140 (8th Cir. 2001). To determine whether a habeas petitioner qualifies for in forma pauperis status, the court need only assess (1) whether the petitioner can afford to pay the full filing fee, and (2) whether the petitioner's appeal is taken in “good faith.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), (3). Jamison’s prisoner trust account report indicates that he has average monthly deposits to his prisoner trust account of $809.84 and an average monthly balance of $20,249.99. Docket 29 at 1. Jamison has sufficient funds to pay the $505.00 appellate filing fees, so his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Thus, it is ORDERED: 1. That Jamison’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Docket 28, is denied. Dated October 4, 2021 BY THE COURT: /s/ Karen E. Schreier KAREN E. SCHREIER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

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?