Opinion
Case Number 06-20402-BC.
February 25, 2008
Defendant Jeffrey Dumas' motion for reconsideration to proceed in forma pauperis [Dkt. # 46] and motion for appointment of appellate counsel [Dkt. # 48] are presently before this Court. Defendant is currently confined at Allenwood Correctional Facility in White Deed, Pennsylvania. This Court sentenced Defendant to 360 months imprisonment after pleading guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine base and distributing cocaine base. See 21 U.S.C. § 846, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). At the time of his sentence, Defendant was represented by retained counsel. Soon thereafter, Defendant's counsel withdrew. On June 4, 2007, Defendant, acting pro se, filed a notice of appeal.
On January 23, 2008, this Court denied Defendant's motion to proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice because Plaintiff's application did not satisfy the good faith requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Defendant's notice of appeal merely stated, "[e]nclosed please find my notice of intent to appeal." Dkt. # 39. Defendant filed the instant motion for reconsideration asserting that the application did not request the legal basis of his appeal. Moreover, the instant motion identifies several issues he wishes to appeal, which demonstrates that the appeal is "not frivolous." See Harkins v. Roberts, 935 F. Supp. 871, 873 (S.D. Miss. 1996) (quoting Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983)). Additionally, Defendant's affidavit demonstrates that he is without the financial means to pay for his appeal. See Dkt. # 44. Defendant has met his burden under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and the Court will grant his application to proceed in forma pauperis.
Next, Defendant requests this Court to appoint counsel for his appeal. This Court acknowledges that an indigent defendant has the right to representation on direct appeal of a criminal conviction. See Pension v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 85 (1988). Defendant, however, has already appealed this matter to the Sixth Circuit. Moreover, the Court's search of Defendant's appeal before the Sixth Circuit (Court of Appeals Docket #: 07-1689) indicates that Defendant has not requested the Sixth Circuit for counsel. The Court concludes that it is more appropriate for the Sixth Circuit to appoint counsel on behalf of Defendant. Thus, the Court will deny Defendant's motion for counsel without prejudice and direct Defendant to file the motion for counsel with the Sixth Circuit.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendant's motion for reconsideration to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal [Dkt. #46] is GRANTED.
It is further ORDERED that Defendant's motion for appointment of appellate counsel [Dkt. #48] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.