“[T]he granting of leave to appeal in forma pauperis from the dismissal of a frivolous suit is presumptively erroneous and indeed self-contradictory.”
How later courts described this case
- “[T]he granting of leave to appeal in forma pauperis from the dismissal of a frivolous suit is presumptively erroneous and indeed self-contradictory.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EDWARD WILLIAMS, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 3:24-cv-164-DWD
)
JEFFREY WEHKING, Warden of )
Centralia Correctional Center, )
)
Respondent.1 )
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
DUGAN, District Judge:
Petitioner, an inmate at Centralia Correctional Center, filed a Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.2 However, the Petition did not survive a
preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the U.S.
District Courts. (Doc. 11). The Court noted, inter alia, the record in this case and the docket
in the Circuit Court of St. Clair County indicated state postconviction proceedings were
ongoing. See People v. Williams, No. 17-CF-195; (Docs. 5; 11, pgs. 2-3). Therefore, the
abstention principles articulated in Younger v. Harris counseled that, absent extraordinary
circumstances, the Court should not interfere with those ongoing proceedings. (Doc. 11,
pg. 3) (citing 401 U.S. 37, 53 (1971); Hickey v. Duffy, 827 F.2d 234, 244 (7th Cir. 1987) (Flaum,
J., concurring); Price v. Superintendent, Miami Corr. Facility, No. 9-cv-409, 2009 WL 3762336,
1The Court notes Jeffrey Wehking replaced Daniel Monti as the day-to-day warden at Centralia
Correctional Center. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to substitute Wehking for Monti on the docket.
2 Petitioner filed a seemingly identical Petition to initiate Case No. 24-cv-165-SPM, which was later
transferred to the undersigned. The Court consolidated the two cases under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
42(a)(2) on April 10, 2024. (Doc. 10). All filings now bear Case No. 24-cv-164-DWD. (Doc. 10).
*1 (N.D. Ind. Nov. 9, 2009); Yeoman v. Pollard, 875 F.3d 832, 837-38 (7th Cir. 2017); Soto v.
Truitt, No. 96-cv-5680, 2023 WL 112585, *8 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 5, 2023)). The Court dismissed
the Petition, without prejudice or consideration of the merits, to allow for exhaustion in
the state court, where Petitioner had legal counsel. (Doc. 11, pgs. 4-5) (citing Yeoman, 875
F.3d at 837-38; Brown v. Wisconsin, No. 14-cv-872, 2015 WL 631288, *3 (E.D. Wisc. Feb. 12,
2015)). Judgment was entered and a certificate of appealability was denied, as reasonable
jurists would not debate the correctness of the exhaustion ruling. (Docs. 11, pgs. 5-6; 12)
Now, Petitioner has filed a Motion and Affidavit for Permission to Appeal In
Forma Pauperis. (Doc. 18). However, “[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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
A plaintiff is “acting in bad faith in the more common legal meaning of the term…[when
he sues]…on the basis of a frivolous claim, which is to say a claim that no reasonable
person could suppose to have any merit.” Lee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025, 1026 (7th Cir.
2000); accord Murphy v. Zatecky, No. 19-cv-4602, 2020 WL 8461540, *1 (S.D. Ind. Oct. 27,
2020). Further, “an appeal in a frivolous suit cannot be ‘in good faith’ under § 1915(a)(3),
because ‘good faith’ must be viewed objectively.” Moran v. Sondalle, 218 F.3d 647, 650 (7th
Cir. 2000) (discussing Lee); see also Tolefree v. Cudahy, 49 F.3d 1243, 1244 (7th Cir. 1995)
(“[T]he granting of leave to appeal in forma pauperis from the dismissal of a frivolous suit
is presumptively erroneous and indeed self-contradictory.”) (Emphasis in original.).
Here, the case was dismissed, without prejudice or consideration of the merits, to
allow for exhaustion in the state court. (Doc. 11). Petitioner offers no argument as to why
that conclusion is incorrect. In fact, the “issues on appeal” section of the instant Motion
was left blank. (Doc. 18, pg. 1). Therefore, for the same reasons discussed at Doc. 11, the
Court CERTIFIES under the above-discussed authorities that Petitioner’s appeal is not
taken in good faith. The Court further DENIES the Motion and Affidavit for Permission
to Appeal In Forma Pauperis. Petitioner must tender the full appellate filing and docketing
fee or reapply for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal with the Seventh Circuit.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 20, 2025
s/ David W. Dugan
__________________________
DAVID W. DUGAN
United States District Judge