From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sareini v. Martin

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION
Dec 14, 2011
Case Number 08-13961 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 14, 2011)

Opinion

Case Number 08-13961

12-14-2011

ALI SAREINI, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL MARTIN, Defendant.


Honorable Thomas L. Ludington


ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION TO PROCEED

WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FEES AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

On September 23, 2008, pro se prisoner Plaintiff Ali Sareini was granted leave to proceed without prepayment of fees in this action. ECF No. 3. On January 22, 2010, the Court entered an order adopting in part and rejecting in part Magistrate Judge Virginia Morgan's report and recommendation, overruling Plaintiff's objections, granting in part and denying in part Defendant's objections, and granting in part and denying in part Defendant's motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 72. The Court's opinion and order dismissed Plaintiff's religious property claim, Plaintiff's religious holiday banquet claim under the Free Exercise Clause, and Plaintiff's Equal Protection claim, resulting in only his religious diet claim regarding cross-contamination of the vegetarian meal options remaining. On April 14, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court denied on September 1, 2011. ECF Nos. 74, 75. Now before the Court is Plaintiff's application to proceed without prepayment of fees on appeal. ECF No. 80. Plaintiff was permitted to proceed without prepayment of fees in this Court; thus, further authorization is not required. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3). Plaintiff may proceed without prepayment of fees on appeal.

Plaintiff has also filed a motion for a certificate of appealability. A certificate of appealability is required only in certain types of cases, typically habeas corpus proceedings brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254 and 2255. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). A certificate of appealability is not required, however, to appeal a district court order denying relief for claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Johnson v. CCA-Northeast Oh. Corr. Ctr., 21 F. App'x 330, 332 (6th Cir. 2001).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff's application to proceed without prepayment of fees (ECF No. 80) is DENIED AS MOOT.

It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for a certificate of appealability (ECF No.77) is DENIED.

_________________

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

United States District Judge

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means and upon Ali Sareini, #203519, at Newberry Correctional Facility, 3001 Newberry Avenue, Newberry, MI 49868 by first class U.S. mail on December 14, 2011.

TRACY A. JACOBS


Summaries of

Sareini v. Martin

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION
Dec 14, 2011
Case Number 08-13961 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 14, 2011)
Case details for

Sareini v. Martin

Case Details

Full title:ALI SAREINI, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL MARTIN, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION

Date published: Dec 14, 2011

Citations

Case Number 08-13961 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 14, 2011)