# McMeans v. Butler (INMATE 4)

> District Court, M.D. Alabama · February 10, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10797233

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Alabama
- **Decided:** February 10, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10797233

## Opinion text

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

THOMAS KENYON McMEANS, )
)
Petitioner, )
) CIVIL ACTION NO.
v. ) 2:23cv332-MHT
) (WO)
REOSHA BUTLER, )
Correctional Warden, III, )
et al., )
)
Respondents. )

ORDER
This cause is now before the court on the
petitioner's notice of appeal (Doc. 40), which the
court is treating as a motion to proceed on appeal in
forma pauperis.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) provides that “[a]n appeal
may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court
certifies in writing that it is not taken in good
faith.” In making this determination as to good faith,
a court must use an objective standard, such as whether
the appeal is "frivolous," Coppedge v. United States,
369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962), or "has no substantive
merit." United States v. Bottoson, 644 F.2d 1174, 1176
(5th Cir. Unit B May 15, 1981) (per curiam); see also

Rudolph v. Allen, 666 F.2d 519, 520 (11th Cir. 1982)
(per curiam); Morris v. Ross, 663 F.2d 1032 (11th Cir.
1981).
Applying this standard, this court is of the

opinion that the petitioner's appeal is without a legal
or factual basis and, accordingly, is frivolous and not
taken in good faith. See, e.g., Rudolph v. Allen,
supra; Brown v. Pena, 441 F. Supp. 1382 (S.D. Fla.

1977), aff'd without opinion, 589 F.2d 1113 (5th Cir.
1979). In this case, petitioner filed a successive
habeas petition without first obtaining the required

authorization to do so from the Court of Appeals. The
court dismissed the case due to the lack of
authorization in January 2024. Petitioner moved for
leave to reopen the time for appeal the dismissal too

late, so the court denied the request. In any case,
the appeal was without basis. He also filed a motion

2
for certificate of appealability, which the court
denied as unnecessary for the dismissal of an

unauthorized successive petition. See December 17,
2024 Order (Doc. 39). He now appeals the court’s order
denying him a certificate of appealability and refusing
to reopen the time for appeal. As petitioner has

provided no potentially viable grounds for his appeal,
the court finds the appeal is frivolous.
***
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the petitioner's

motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is
denied; and that the appeal in this cause is certified,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), as not taken in

good faith.
DONE, this the 10th day of February, 2025.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10797233. Public record. Not legal advice.