Lawson v. Vannoy et al, No. 2:2016cv16909 - Document 20 (E.D. La. 2017)

Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS denying 18 Motion for Certificate of Appealability; denying 19 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 11/20/2017. (cg)

Download PDF
Lawson v. Vannoy et al Doc. 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA CLEVELAND LAWSON CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 16-1690 9 DARRYL VANNOY SECTION “R” (4) ORD ER Petitioner Cleveland Lawson requests a certificate of appealability 1 and m oves the Court to perm it him to proceed in form a pauperis on appeal. 2 The Court denied a certificate of appealability in its October 24, 20 17 order denying habeas relief. 3 Because Lawson’s argum ents lack good faith, the Court also denies the m otion to proceed in form a pauperis. 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. 18. R. Doc. 19. R. Doc. 15. 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). Lawson’s m otion to proceed in form a pauperis indicates that his inm ate drawing account has a balance of $ 18.0 6, his inm ate savings account has a balance of $ 236.0 6, and he has no other assets. 4 Although Lawson’s m otion suggests his inability to pay fees related to his appeal, his motion m ust be denied because the arguments he intends to raise on appeal do not 4 R. Doc. 19. 2 have an arguable basis either in law or in fact and are therefore frivolous. As explained in the Court’s order denying habeas relief, Lawson’s petition m ust be denied because it is tim e-barred under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. 5 In his application for a certificate of appealability, Lawson sim ply rehashes the same argum ents he m ade before the Magistrate J udge and this Court. 6 Lawson fails to address the statute of lim itations issue in his notice of appeal, his request for a certificate of appealability, or his m otion to proceed in form a pauperis. For the foregoing reasons, Lawson’s m otion for leave to appeal in form a pauperis is DENIED. As stated in the Court’s October 24, 20 17 order, the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability. 20th New Orleans, Louisiana, this _ _ _ _ _ day of November, 20 17. _____________________ SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT J UDGE 5 6 R. Doc. 15. R. Doc. 18. 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.