Hohol, Dennis v. Dittman, Michael et al
Filing
7
ORDER Construing Notice of Appeal as Request to Proceed ifp. Leave to proceed ifp denied. Request for certificate of appealability denied. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 4/15/2014. (jef),(ps)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - DENNIS LEE HOHOL,
ORDER
Petitioner,
14-cv-81-bbc
v.
MICHAEL DITTMAN and LLOYD CARTER,
Respondents.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - On March 17, 2014, I denied Dennis Lee Hohol’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. I also denied petitioner a certificate of appealability. Now before
the court is document from petitioner that was forwarded from the Seventh Circuit Court
of Appeals titled “Application for Redress and/or Appealability Rights.” I construe this
document to be a notice of appeal. Because petitioner has not paid the $505 filing fee for
his appeal, I also construe his notice as a request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
The request will be denied because I must certify that petitioner’s appeal is not taken 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). However, I cannot certify that petitioner’s appeal is taken in good faith;
I denied his petition upon screening it under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254
1
cases because he procedurally defaulted his claims and in any event, the claims had no merit.
Having reviewed the order, I am convinced that reasonable jurists would not debate the
conclusions I reached.
Because I am certifying petitioner’s appeal as not having been taken in good faith, he
cannot proceed with his appeal without prepaying the $505 filing fee unless the court of
appeals gives him permission to do so. Under Fed. R. App. P. 24, petitioner has 30 days
from the date of this order in which to ask the court of appeals to review this court’s denial
of his request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. With his motion, he must
include an affidavit as described in the first paragraph of Fed. R. App. P. 24(a), with a
statement of issues he intends to argue on appeal. Also, he must send along a copy of this
order. Petitioner should be aware that he must file these documents in addition to the
notice of appeal he has filed previously.
If petitioner does not file a motion requesting review of this order, the court of
appeals might not address the denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
Instead, it may require petitioner to pay the entire $505 filing fee before it considers his
appeal. If petitioner does not pay the fee within the deadline set, it is possible that the court
of appeals will dismiss the appeal.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that petitioner Dennis Lee Hohol’s request leave to proceed in
forma pauperis on appeal is DENIED because I certify that his appeal is not taken in good
2
faith. If petitioner wishes to appeal this decision, he must follow the procedure set out in
Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5).
The clerk of court is requested to insure that petitioner’s
obligation to pay the $505 filing fee for the appeal is reflected in this court’s financial
records.
Entered this 15th day of April, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge
3
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?