Anderson v. Director, TDCJ-CID
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 66 MOTION for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis filed by Terry Weldon Anderson. All future motions should be filed with the Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Signed by Judge Leonard Davis on 7/9/12. (mjc, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TERRY WELDON ANDERSON, #654139
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:10cv420
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL
Came on for consideration, the Appellant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal
(docket entry #66). Appellant did not proceed in forma pauperis in the District Court. On February
21, 2012, the assigned Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation (R&R) that Appellant’s
petition be dismissed with prejudice and a certificate of appealability be denied (docket entry #52),
in part because Appellant had made a knowing and voluntary guilty plea in the trial court, which
foreclosed most avenues of federal habeas relief, and in part because Appellant’s remaining
ineffective assistance of counsel claims were without merit. The Appellant then filed objections
(docket entry #58) to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R. In summary, Appellant expanded some of his
ineffective assistance of counsel claims, without merit. He added little to his original petition,
including on the issue of entering into a knowing and voluntary guilty plea. See generally
This Court therefore overruled the Objections, denied Appellant’s petition, and denied a
Certificate of Appealability (“COA”) on March 21, 2012. See docket entries #59, 60.
For the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation and the Order of Dismissal,
Appellant does not have a “good faith” non-frivolous issue for appeal as required for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3)(A). Baugh v.
Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 n.21 (5th Cir. 1997) (To comply with Rule 24 and to inform the Court of
Appeals of the reasons for its certification, a district court may incorporate by reference its order
dismissing an appellant’s claims (in the context of a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983)). Additionally, as noted above, Appellant did not proceed in forma pauperis in the District
Court. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3). Furthermore, because the Appellant has not shown that he is
entitled to a certificate of appealability, he also has not shown that he is entitled to proceed in forma
pauperis on appeal. United States v. Delario, 120 F.3d 580, 582-83 (5th Cir. 1997). Finally,
Appellant attached a recent copy of his inmate trust fund account. Although he filed an affidavit that
he does not own any property, stocks or bonds or have any money in the bank or in his trust fund
account, see docket entry #67, his trust fund account statement shows that he has a regular source
of funds, has received $305.00 over the past six months and has had an average deposit in his
account of $50.83 over the past six months. He therefore could pay an in forma pauperis fee on his
appeal, even if he were required to pay it in increments. Therefore, Appellant is denied leave to
proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. It is accordingly
ORDERED that the motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (docket entry #66) is
DENIED. All future motions should be filed with the Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 9th day of July, 2012.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?