Opinion
CAUSE NO. 3:14-CV-2011 RM
03-14-2016
SHAUN BROOKS, JR., Petitioner v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent
(Arising out of 3:11-CR-56 RM)
OPINION and ORDER
On January 28, 2016, the court denied Shaun Brooks' petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Mr. Brooks has filed an appeal of that order, which requires the court to consider whether a certificate of appealability should be issued and Mr. Brooks be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis on his appeal.
Issuance of a certificate of appealability requires the court to find that Mr. Brooks has made "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). He hasn't done so. Mr. Brooks didn't establish any prejudice on his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel as required by Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984), so his request for a certificate of appealability will be denied.
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3) provides that a financially indigent person may be permitted to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis unless the court "certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith." In other words, the court must determine "that a reasonable person could suppose that the appeal has some merit." Walker v. O'Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 632 (7th Cir. 2000). Because no reasonable person could find that Mr. Brooks' appeal has any merit, the court concludes that his appeal is not taken in good faith, and his request for pauper status must be denied.
Based on the foregoing, the court DENIES issuance of a certificate of appealability and that Mr. Brooks' be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: March 14, 2016
/s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr.
Judge, United States District Court cc: S. Brooks
AUSA Schmid