Opinion
24-cv-12752
12-05-2024
IVORY TRAYLOR, Petitioner, v. JACOB LAFAVE, Respondent.
ORDER DENYING THE APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, DISMISSING THE HABEAS PETITION, AND DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Robert J. White United States District Judge
Ivory Traylor submitted a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Traylor's certificate of prisoner institutional/trust fund account activity shows a current spendable account balance of $134.90 as of November 7, 2024. (ECF No. 5). Based on this financial data, Traylor has not established indigence. He can pay the $5.00 filing fee. The Court, therefore, denies the in forma pauperis application and dismisses the petition without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A); see also Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, Rule 3(a)(2). Traylor may file a new habeas petition and pay the filing fee in a new case.
As for next steps, a certificate of appealability must issue before Traylor appeals this decision. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(a); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A certificate of appealability may issue only if the petitioner makes “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When a court denies habeas relief on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability should issue if jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petitioner states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the court was correct in its procedural ruling. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). Since jurists of reason would not find the Court's procedural ruling debatable, a certificate of appealability cannot issue. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 5) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) is dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case.