Adames v. State of Wisconsin

Filing 25

ORDER re 23 MOTION for Leave to Appeal Without Prepayment of the Filing Fee filed by Jose A Adames signed by Chief Judge William C Griesbach on 10/11/18. (cc: all counsel and via US Mail to Jose A. Adames)(Griesbach, William)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

JOSE A. ADAMES,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.

USDC Case No. 18-C-362
USCA Case No. 18-3116

WARDEN BRIAN FOSTER,
Respondent-Appellee.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF THE FILING FEE

Petitioner filed a notice of appeal from my order denying him relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
ECF No. 16. He has now filed a motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. ECF No.
23. Petitioner is a prison inmate without significant income and thus clearly meets the indigency
requirement of a motion for leave to proceed without prepaying the full filing fee. Because his
appeal is from the denial of a petition for relief under § 2254, the initial partial filing fee provisions
of the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) do not apply. See Walker v. O’Brien, 216 F.3d 626
(7th Cir. 2000) (holding that “the PLRA does not apply to any requests for collateral relief under 28
U.S.C. §§ 2241, 2254, or 2255”). Section 1915(a)(3) also states, however, that an appeal may not
be taken in forma pauperis if the district court certifies in writing that the appeal is not taken in good
faith. “Good faith” is an objective standard. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 446 (1962);
Lee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025, 1026 (7th Cir. 2000). An appeal is taken in “good faith” if it seeks
review of any issue that is not clearly frivolous, Coppedge, 369 U.S. at 445; Lee, 209 F.3d at 1026,

meaning that a reasonable person could suppose it to have at least some legal merit. Lee, 209 F.3d
at 1026.
The good faith standard is more lenient than the standards for granting a certificate of
appealability. Walker, 216 F.3d at 631–32. A certificate of appealability may issue “only if the
applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2). To obtain a certificate of appealability, the petitioner must establish that “reasonable
jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved
in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to
proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
Here, I denied a certificate of appealability because I concluded that jurists of reason would
not debate the outcome. Nevertheless, Petitioner’s appeal from my decision satisfies the good faith
standard to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Therefore, his motion for leave to appeal without
prepayment of the filing fee (ECF No. 23) is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED this 11th

day of October, 2018.
s/ William C. Griesbach
William C. Griesbach, Chief Judge
United States District Court

2