From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wilson v. Hall

United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division
Aug 25, 2021
2:20-cv-02775-MSN-tmp (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 25, 2021)

Opinion

2:20-cv-02775-MSN-tmp

08-25-2021

CARLOS WILSON, Petitioner, v. HINTON HALL, JR., Respondent.


ORDER DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, CERTIFYING THAT AN APPEAL WOULD NOT BE TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH, AND DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL

MARK S. NORRIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

On January 20, 2021, the Court dismissed the case for failure to prosecute after Petitioner Carlos Wilson failed to file an amended petition in compliance with the Court's Orders. (See ECF No. 26 at PageID 26.) Petitioner has filed a notice of appeal. (ECF No. 28.)

There is no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court's denial of a § 2254 petition. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335 (2003); Bradley v. Birkett, 156 Fed.Appx. 771, 772 (6th Cir. 2005). The Court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability (“COA”) when it enters a final order adverse to a § 2254 petitioner. Rule 11, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. A petitioner may not take an appeal unless a circuit or district judge issues a COA. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1).

A COA may issue only if the petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, and the COA must indicate the specific issue or issues that satisfy the required showing. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2253(c)(2)-(3). A “substantial showing” is made when the petitioner demonstrates 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.'” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 336 (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)); Henley v. Bell, 308 Fed.Appx. 989, 990 (6th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (same).

A COA does not require a showing that the appeal will succeed. Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 337; Caldwell v. Lewis, 414 Fed.Appx. 809, 814-15 (6th Cir. 2011) (same). Courts should not issue a COA as a matter of course. Bradley, 156 Fed.Appx. at 773 (quoting Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 337).

In this case, there can be no question that Petitioner has failed to comply with the Court's orders. Because any appeal by Petitioner on the issues raised in this petition does not deserve attention, the Court DENIES a COA.

For the reasons the Court denies a COA, the Court determines that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. It is therefore CERTIFIED, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 24(a), that any appeal in this matter would not be taken in good faith and leave to appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED.

If Petitioner files a notice of appeal, he must pay the full $505 appellate filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and supporting affidavit in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals within thirty (30) days of the date of entry of this order. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5).

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Wilson v. Hall

United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division
Aug 25, 2021
2:20-cv-02775-MSN-tmp (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 25, 2021)
Case details for

Wilson v. Hall

Case Details

Full title:CARLOS WILSON, Petitioner, v. HINTON HALL, JR., Respondent.

Court:United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division

Date published: Aug 25, 2021

Citations

2:20-cv-02775-MSN-tmp (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 25, 2021)