Carter, et al v. Rone, et al

Filing 129

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF THE COURT. The petitioner's application for leave to proceed as a pauper on appeal 126 is DENIED. For the petitioner's use in completing any application under Rule 24(a)(5), which "must include a cop y of the affidavit filed in the district court and the district court's statement of reasons for its action," the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to include a copy of 126 with its mailing of the petitioner's service copy of this order. The Clerk is further DIRECTED to forward a copy of this Order to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, and to terminate 127 as a motion pending in this court. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 3/19/2021. (xc: Copy of this Order and 126 to Pro se party by regular mail. Copy of this Order to Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(kc) Modified on 3/19/2021 (kc).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

JOHN E. CARTER,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,
v.
NEIL RONE, Warden,
Respondent.

Case No. 3:90-cv-00780
Judge Trauger

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
John E. Carter, the petitioner in this habeas corpus action, has filed a Notice of Appeal
from this court’s August 5, 2020 denial of his motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) (Doc. No. 118), in the wake of the court’s recent denial of his motion
for reconsideration of the August 5 order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). (Doc. No.
123.) The petitioner has also filed an application for leave to proceed as a pauper on appeal (Doc.
No. 126) and a motion, captioned for filing in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, for
“reappointment of counsel.” (Doc. No. 127.)
The court previously certified that any appeal from its August 5 order would not be taken
in good faith, and therefore could not be taken in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
(Doc. No. 118 at 9.) The court also declined to grant a certificate of appealability from its August
5 order because reasonable jurists could not disagree with the court’s denial of the petitioner’s
Rule 60(b)(6) motion as untimely. (Doc. No. 123 at 5.) Accordingly, the petitioner’s application
for leave to proceed as a pauper on appeal (Doc. No. 126) is DENIED.

Within 30 days after service of this order, the petitioner must either pay the full $505
appellate filing fee into this Court, or file in the Sixth Circuit an application to proceed in forma
pauperis on appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(5). Failure to submit the
requisite filing fee or application within the time allotted may result in summary dismissal of the
appeal.
For the petitioner’s use in completing any application under Rule 24(a)(5), which “must
include a copy of the affidavit filed in the district court and the district court’s statement of reasons
for its action,” the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to include a copy of Doc. No. 126 with its mailing
of the petitioner’s service copy of this order.
The Clerk is further DIRECTED to forward a copy of this Order to the Sixth Circuit Court
of Appeals, and to terminate Doc. No. 127 as a motion pending in this court.
It is so ORDERED.

____________________________________
Aleta A. Trauger
United States District Judge

2