Filed: Apr. 18, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 18, 2014
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1 SHARON L. OVINGTON, Chief Magistrate Judge. This Court previously denied with prejudice Lonnie Scandrick's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and declined to issue him a Certificate of Appealability. (Doc. #11, PageID at 925). Scandrick has filed a Notice of Appeal. (Doc. #14). The case is presently before the Court upon Scandrick's pro se Motion For Pauper Status (Doc. #13) and the record as a whole. Scandrick "move[s] to waive the payment of the appellate fil
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1 SHARON L. OVINGTON, Chief Magistrate Judge. This Court previously denied with prejudice Lonnie Scandrick's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and declined to issue him a Certificate of Appealability. (Doc. #11, PageID at 925). Scandrick has filed a Notice of Appeal. (Doc. #14). The case is presently before the Court upon Scandrick's pro se Motion For Pauper Status (Doc. #13) and the record as a whole. Scandrick "move[s] to waive the payment of the appellate fili..
More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS1
SHARON L. OVINGTON, Chief Magistrate Judge.
This Court previously denied with prejudice Lonnie Scandrick's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and declined to issue him a Certificate of Appealability. (Doc. #11, PageID at 925). Scandrick has filed a Notice of Appeal. (Doc. #14).
The case is presently before the Court upon Scandrick's pro se Motion For Pauper Status (Doc. #13) and the record as a whole. Scandrick "move[s] to waive the payment of the appellate filing fee under Fed. R. App. P. 24 because [he] is a pauper." Id. He swears under the penalty of perjury that he cannot afford to pay the required appellate docket fees or "post a bond for them." Id. And he has attached his financial affidavit to his Motion.
Scandrick may not proceed in forma pauperis on appeal "if the trial court certifies in writing that [his appeal] is not taken in good faith." 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(3). The test under 28 U.S.C. §1915(a) for whether an appeal is taken in good faith is whether the litigant seeks appellate review of any non-frivolous issue. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 82 S.Ct. 917 (1962). An appellant's good-faith subjective motivation for appealing is not relevant. The issue instead is whether, viewed objectively, there is any non-frivolous issue to be litigated on appeal. Id., 369 U.S. at 445, 82 S.Ct. at 921.
Scandrick's Motion For Pauper Status and attached financial affidavit establish that he is unable to pay the $450.00 docketing fee required to pursue an appeal. He is therefore financially eligible for in forma pauperis status. However, his Motion presents no new contentions that indicate why his appeal is taken in good faith. As a result, and for the reasons set forth in the prior Report and Recommendations as well as the Decision and Entry adopting it (Doc. #s 8, 11), objectively viewed, there are no non-frivolous issues to be litigated on appeal.
Accordingly, Scandrick's appeal is not taken in good faith.
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:
1. Scandrick's Motion For Pauper Status (Doc. #13) be DENIED; and
2. The case remain terminated on the docket of this Court.
