Opinion
21-cv-296-jdp
12-15-2023
ERIC W. STRONG, Petitioner, v. CHRISTOPHER BUESGEN, Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER
JAMES D. PETERSON DISTRICT JUDGE
Habeas petitioner Eric Strong moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, Dkt. 51, and for reconsideration of my decision denying a certificate of appealability, Dkt. 52.
I have considered Strong's arguments in support of his motion for reconsideration, and I am not persuaded that my original opinion and order, Dkt. 49, is based on any legal error. Strong's motion for reconsideration does not make a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), so I will deny his motion for reconsideration. Strong will have to ask the court of appeals for a certificate of appealability.
Strong's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis shows that he is unable to prepay the full appellate filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). The standard for issuing a certificate of appealability is higher than the standard for granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Section 1915 requires that I conclude only that the appeal is not taken in bad faith, which courts have interpreted to mean is not frivolous. See Thomas v. Zatecky, 712 F.3d 1004, 1006 (7th Cir. 2013). I conclude that the appeal is not frivolous, so the motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, Dkt. 51, is GRANTED.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner Eric W. Strong's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, Dkt. 51, is GRANTED.
2. Strong's motion for reconsideration of the denial of a certificate of appealability, DKt. 52, is DENIED.