United States v. Taylor
United States v. Houston Junior TAYLOR
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Weinberger (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, which requested a transcript and appointed counsel without specifying any trial errors. The court denied the motion, certifying the appeal was not taken in good faith, and refused to provide a transcript or counsel at government expense.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal“The Court certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith and denies petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel to represent him, and denies petitioner’s request for a transcript at Government expense, and denies petitioner’s request to proceed further with his appeal in forma pauperis.” | agree with court The court's decision to deny the IFP status and the associated requests (transcript and counsel) is based on the finding that the appeal is not taken in good faith. The order recites that the petitioner failed to state any specific errors or constitutional violations, characterizing the request as a 'discovery procedure' to search for error. Under the law applicable in 1963 (and generally under 28 U.S.C. § 1915), a court may deny IFP status if the appeal is frivolous or not taken in good faith. The court's reasoning that a request for a transcript without a specific basis for appeal constitutes a bad-faith 'discovery' effort is a defensible application of the good faith requirement, as the petitioner did not demonstrate a non-frivolous claim of error. Therefore, the decision follows from the law and the record as recited in the order. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is short and procedural. It relies on the petitioner's failure to articulate specific errors to find the appeal lacks good faith. While the conclusion is defensible, the order does not explicitly cite the specific statutory provision governing the denial of IFP status for appeals (28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) or its predecessor) or the specific case law defining 'good faith' in the context of IFP appeals at that time. It relies on a general characterization of the petitioner's intent as 'discovery,' which is a valid legal ground but is not supported by specific cited authority in the text provided.
Opinion — Weinberger
WEINBERGER, District Judge.
Petitioner has filed an affidavit in Forma Pauperis, and the Court finds that he is a pauper. He has proffered notice of appeal, which this Court has ordered filed without payment of fee.
Petitioner has filed the following motion:
“Having served notice of intention to appeal in the above entitled case, petitioner now respectfully moves this Court to order the Clerks to provide petitioner with a transcript of all testimony, all documents and affidavits and records in the aforesaid ease, pursuant of the United States code, Yol. 4 Sec. 1025 .# 4: Rights of papers to Transcript, to be used by defendant in preparation of said appeal, and to show violation of constitutional rights.”
Petitioner has not stated wherein error was committed during his trial, he has not stated wherein any constitutional rights were violated. His only statement with reference to his reason for desiring to appeal is that quoted above. He also has asked that counsel be appointed to represent him in prosecuting his appeal.
It is evidently the purpose of petitioner to procure, at government expense, a transcript of the evidence introduced at his trial, and to procure appointed counsel to search through the transcript to ascertain if any error were committed at the trial. Such “discovery procedure” is not provided for by statute.
The Court certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith and denies petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel to represent him, and denies petitioner’s request for a transcript at Government expense, and denies petitioner’s request to proceed further with his appeal in forma pauperis.