Opinion
2:23-cv-469-SPC-NPM 2:20-cr-111-SPC-NPM
02-02-2024
BRANTLEY SEYMORE, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES, Respondent.
ORDER
SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Before the Court is pro se Petitioner Brantley Seymore's application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. (Doc. 21). Last month, the Court denied his Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Doc. 17). In doing so, the Court found that Seymore did not make the requisite showing for a certificate of appealability. (Doc. 21 at 17 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)). Still, Seymore again asks the Court to proceed on his appeal without having to pay the fees.
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24 governs a request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal:
A party who was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in the district-court action, . . . may proceed on appeal in forma pauperis without further authorization, unless: (A) the district court-before or after the notice of appeal is filed-certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith . . . and states in writing its reasons for the certification[.]Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3)(A). Having again reviewed the record, the Court continues to deny issuing a certificate of appealability because reasonable jurists would not find its assessment of Seymore's claims debatable or wrong. See Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274, 282 (2004). Nor has Seymore shown that the issues he raised were adequate to move forward. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003).
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED:
Petitioner Brantley Seymore's application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (Doc. 21) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDER.