Adams v. Cooley et al, No. 2:2015cv06207 - Document 38 (E.D. La. 2017)

Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS denying 36 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis; denying 37 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 12/11/2017. (cg)

Download PDF
Adams v. Cooley et al Doc. 38 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA BLAKE ADAMS CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 15-620 7 KEITH COOLEY, WARDEN SECTION “R” (5) ORD ER On J une 23, 20 17, the Court dism issed with prejudice Blake Adams’s petition for habeas corpus and denied a certificate of appealability. 1 The Court later denied Adam s’s m otion to alter or am end judgment. 2 Adam s now m oves the Court to perm it him to proceed in form a pauperis on appeal. 3 Because Adam s’s argum ents lack good faith, the Court denies the m otion. A claim ant m ay proceed with an appeal in form a pauperis if he m eets three requirem ents. First, the claimant m ust subm it “an affidavit that includes a statem ent . . . that [he] is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Based on this information, the district court m ust determine whether the costs of appeal would cause an undue financial hardship. See Prow s v. Kastner, 842 F.2d 138, 140 (5th Cir. 1998). 1 2 3 R. Doc. 24; R. Doc. 25. R. Doc. 33. R. Doc. 36. Dockets.Justia.com Second, the claim ant m ust provide the court with an affidavit that “states the issues that the party intends to present on appeal.” Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(C); accord 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) (“Such affidavit shall state the nature of the . . . appeal and affiant’s belief that the person is entitled to redress.”). Third, the claim ant’s appeal m ust be “taken in good faith.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(4)(B). “Good faith is dem onstrated when a party seeks appellate review of any issue ‘not frivolous.’” How ard v. King, 70 7 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (citing Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962)). Good faith “does not require that probable success be shown,” but rather “is lim ited to whether the appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” United States v. Arroy o-Jurado, 477 F. App’x 150 , 151 (5th Cir. 20 12). “A com plaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Kingery v. Hale, 73 F. App’x 755, 755 (5th Cir. 20 0 3). Adam s’s m otion indicates that his current prison drawing account balance is $ 25.60 , his prison savings account balance is $59.0 4, and he has no other assets. 4 Although Adam s’s m otion suggests an inability to pay fees related to his appeal, the m otion m ust be denied because the argum ents Adam s intends to raise on appeal do not have an arguable basis either in law 4 R. Doc. 36. 2 or in fact and are therefore frivolous. In his notice of appeal, Adam s argues that his conviction was contrary to clearly established constitutional law, and that the state courts unreasonably determ ined the facts of his case because he was convicted based on perjured testim ony and fabricated evidence. 5 For the reasons explained in the Court’s orders dism issing Adam s’s habeas corpus petition and denying his m otion to alter or am end judgm ent, Adams has m ade no showing of actual innocence and his other arguments are without m erit. 6 Accordingly, Adams’s m otion for leave to appeal in form a pauperis is DENIED. New Orleans, Louisiana, this _ 11th _ day of Decem ber, 20 17. ___ _____________________ SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT J UDGE 5 6 R. Doc. 34. R. Doc. 24; R. Doc. 33. 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.