United States District Court, D. Minnesota
October 8, 2014
Samuel K. Willis, Petitioner,
United States of America, Respondent.
JOAN N. ERICKSEN, District Judge.
This case is before the Court on Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal of this Court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. To qualify for in forma pauperis status on appeal, a litigant who appeals from a judgment must submit information that demonstrates the litigant's inability to pay, or give security for, the appellate filing fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) (2006); see also Malave v. Hedrick, 271 F.3d 1139, 1139-1140 (8th Cir. Mo. 2001) (holding that the Prison Litigation Reform Act filing-fee provisions are inapplicable to habeas corpus actions). Even if the litigant is financially eligible to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, the litigant may not appeal in forma pauperis if the district court "certifies in writing that [the appeal] is not taken in good faith." Id. § 1915(a)(3). Good faith in this context is judged by an objective standard rather than the subjective beliefs of the appellant. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). To determine whether an appeal is taken in good faith, the Court must decide whether the claims to be decided on appeal are factually or legally frivolous. Id. An appeal is frivolous, and therefore cannot be taken in good faith, "where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
In this case, the information submitted by Plaintiff indicates that he is financially eligible for in forma pauperis status on appeal. Cf. Chatman v. Allegheny Cnty., 144 F.Appx. 216, 217-18 (3d Cir. 2005) (per curiam). Although the Court remains satisfied that Plaintiff's claims were properly addressed, the Court declines to certify that Plaintiff's appeal is not taken in good faith. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
Based on the files, records, and proceedings herein, and for the reasons stated above, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal [Docket No. 18] is GRANTED.