Opinion
Case No. 2:06-CV-13066.
July 14, 2006
I. Introduction
Petitioner Ernest Edwards, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the Marquette Branch Prison in Marquette, Michigan, has filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging an uttering and publishing conviction which was imposed in the Bay County Circuit Court in 1986. Petitioner has not filed the $5.00 filing fee applicable to habeas corpus petitions, see 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), but seeks to proceed in forma pauperis. Because Petitioner has been enjoined from filing in forma pauperis lawsuits in this District without leave of court, and such leave has not been requested nor granted, the Court denies the request to proceed in forma pauperis and dismisses the habeas petition. The Court also denies a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal
Much of the petition is illegible. Consequently, the Court cannot discern from the face of the petition, the nature of Petitioner's habeas claims.
II. Discussion
Petitioner has been a frequent filer of civil rights complaints and habeas corpus petitions in this District. In 1996, District Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff reviewed Petitioner's history of filing complaints and petitions in this district. See Edwards v. Hofbauer, No. 96-CV-74292-DT (E.D. Mich. Oct. 31, 1996) ("Order Dismissing Complaint Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and Enjoining Plaintiff from Filing Future Complaints Without Prior Authorization"). Judge Zatkoff found that Petitioner's "history of unsubstantiated and vexatious litigation amounts to continued abuse of his in forma pauperis status" and enjoined Petitioner from filing any additional in forma pauperis lawsuits in this District without leave of court. Judge Zatkoff ordered that any new complaint or petition filed by Petitioner must be accompanied by:
(1) an application for permission to file the pleading; and
(2) an affidavit demonstrating that plaintiff's allegations have merit and that they are not a repetition of plaintiff's previous complaints or petitions.Id.
Petitioner has failed to file the required application or affidavit in this matter. Therefore, the Court finds that Petitioner is enjoined from filing this petition in forma pauperis and his habeas petition should be dismissed.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons stated, the Court concludes that Petitioner is enjoined from proceeding in forma pauperis in this case and that his habeas petition must be dismissed.
Before Petitioner may appeal this Court's dispositive decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(a); Fed.R.App.P. 22(b). A certificate of appealability may issue "only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right as to the issues raised in his habeas petition. No certificate of appealability is warranted in this case nor should Petitioner be granted leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. See Fed.R.App.P. 24(a).
Accordingly;
IT IS ORDERED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED, that Petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED, and that a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis are DENIED.