Grant v. Pollard

Filing 23

ORDER signed by Judge Rudolph T. Randa on 11/24/2014. 21 Petitioner's MOTION for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis DENIED; the Court certifies that the appeal has been taken in bad faith. 19 Petitioner's MOTION for copies, postage, legal supplies DENIED. 22 Petitioner's MOTION for Oral Argument DENIED without prejudice. (cc: all counsel, via US mail to James Grant at Waupun Correctional Institution)(cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
JAMES EDWARD GRANT,
Petitioner,
-vs-

Case No. 14-C-1005
(USCA No. 14-3479)

WILLIAM POLLARD,
Warden of Waupun Correctional Institution,
Respondent.

DECISION AND ORDER
The pro se Petitioner, state prisoner James Edward Grant (“Grant”),
filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No.
1.) On September 12, 2014, the Court denied Grant’s request for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, dismissed the case as frivolous pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), and declined to issue a certificate of appealability.
(ECF No. 7.) Judgment was also entered dismissing the action. (ECF No. 8.)
Grant filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied. (ECF No.
12.) Grant filed a notice of appeal. (ECF No. 13.) Currently before the Court
are Grant’s request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, his motion for an
order requiring Carla Hartman (“Hartman”), an employee of the Waupun
Correctional Institution business office, to provide him with legal supplies,
and a motion for supplemental oral argument. (ECF Nos. 19, 21, 22.)
A petitioner may only proceed in forma pauperis on appeal if the Court

finds that he is indigent and that he is taking his appeal in good faith. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). To find that an appeal is in good faith, a court need find
only that a reasonable person could suppose the appeal has some merit.
Walker v. O’Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 631-32 (7th Cir. 2000). On the other hand,
an appeal taken in bad faith is one that is based on a frivolous claim; that is, a
claim that no reasonable person could suppose has any merit. Lee v. Clinton,
209 F.3d 1025, 1026 (7th Cir. 2000).

District courts must not “apply an

inappropriately high standard when making good faith determinations,” and
denial of a certificate of appeal does not necessarily warrant denial of in forma
pauperis status. Pate v. Stevens, 163 F.3d 437, 439 (7th Cir. 1998).
With respect to Grant’s indigency, the current fee for filing an appeal is
$455.00, which includes a $5.00 docketing fee. The current balance in his
regular trust account is 41¢. (ECF No. 20.) Grant is unable to pay the fee for
filing an appeal.
By its Decision and Order, the Court declined to issue a certificate of
appealability. Though cognizant that the standard for permission to appeal
in forma pauperis is more lenient than that applied to a request for a
certificate of appealability, Walker, 216 F.3d at 631, having considered
Grant’s stated reasons for appealing (see ECF No. 13), this Court cannot find

-2-

that a reasonable person would conclude that the issues Grant intends to
appeal have merit.

Therefore, this Court certifies that Grant’s appeal is

taken in bad faith.
Grant requests that Hartman be directed to provide him with various
supplies at no cost to Grant or be paid for with funds from his trust account.
Grant does not have funds in his regular account to purchase supplies. Grant
also has exhausted his legal loan limit for 2014.1 (Nov. 18, 2014 Mem.) (ECF
No. 21 at 3.) He was also informed that he may re-apply for a legal loan in
2015. (Id.)
Grant is responsible for managing his own legal loan. Grant has “‘no
constitutional entitlement to subsidy,’ Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526, 528
(7th Cir. 2002), to prosecute a civil suit; like any other civil litigant, he must
decide which of his legal actions is important enough to fund.

Lucien v.

DeTella, 141 F.3d 773, 774 (7th Cir. 1998).” Lindell v. McCallum, 352 F.3d
1107, 1111 (7th Cir. 2003) See also Jacobs v. Frank, No. 07-C-55, 2008 WL
1

Section 301.328(1m), Wis. Stats., provides:
No prisoner may receive more than $100 annually in
litigation loans, except that any amount of the debt the
prisoner repays during the year may be advanced to the
prisoner again without counting against the $100 litigation
loan limit. No prisoner may receive a litigation loan in any
amount until he or she has repaid a prior loan in full or has
made arrangements for repayment.

-3-

163672, at *2 (E.D. Wis. Jan. 16, 2008). The Court declines to order Hartman
to provide Grant with legal supplies.
Grant also requests supplemental oral argument. That request should
be addressed to the Court of Appeals and, therefore, is denied without
prejudice.
NOW, THEREFORE, BASED ON THE FOREGOING, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
Grant’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (ECF
No. 21) is DENIED because this Court certifies that such appeal has been
taken in BAD FAITH;
Grant’s motion for copies, postage, and legal supplies (ECF No. 19) is
DENIED; and
Grant’s request for oral argument (ECF No. 22) is DENIED without
prejudice.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 24th day of November, 2014.

BY THE COURT:

__________________________
HON. RUDOLPH T. RANDA
U.S. District Judge

-4-