Opinion
04-C-831-C.
May 3, 2005
ORDER
Petitioner Edward Anderson has filed a notice of appeal indicating that he seeks to appeal this court's dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Although petitioner has not filed a request for a certificate of appealability or for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, I infer from petitioner's notice of appeal that he is requesting both. For the reasons stated below, I am denying both motions.
Because petitioner seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, this court must determine whether petitioner is taking his appeal in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). In addition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) and Fed.R.App.P. 22, this court must determine whether to issue a certificate of appealability to petitioner. To find that an appeal is in good faith, a court need only find 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, a certificate of appealability shall issue "only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). In order to make this showing, a petitioner must "sho[w] 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) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893, n. 4 (1983)).
As should be plain from this court's March 25, 2005 opinion, petitioner cannot make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. As explained in that opinion, petitioner's challenge to his custody amounts to a dispute about the manner in which the state Department of Corrections awarded credit due him pursuant to a post-hoc award of sentencing credit. At most, that claim amounts to a claim that the department violated state law. The absence of a constitutional basis for petitioner's claim means that he is not entitled to a certificate of appealability. Moreover, in light of the clear lack of a federal foundation for his petition, I am unable to conclude that his appeal is taken in good faith.