Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Redford v. Conley

United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division

April 27, 2017

DR. MIKE REDFORD, Juris; President U.S. Cyberwar Research Institute, Washington, D.C., Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN CONLEY, Respondent.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR. Judge

         This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Mike Redford's ("Petitioner") Application to Appeal In Forma Pauperis [32] ("Application"). Also before the Court are Petitioner's Motion for Certificate of Appealability [26], Motion in Arrest of Judgment [30], and Motion for Leave to File Exhibits [31].

         I. BACKGROUND

         On February 7, 2017, the Court issued its Order [21] denying Petitioner's amended 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition [9]. Petitioner challenged the termination of his parental rights and appeared to challenge a state-court order requiring him to make child support payments. Petitioner currently is incarcerated based on separate convictions for aggravated stalking. Because Petitioner does not challenge the convictions for which he is in custody, the Court determined that Section 2241 is not the appropriate vehicle for the relief Petitioner seeks. The Court also determined that, even if Petitioner, in the future, were held in custody based on contempt proceedings for failure to make child-support payments, the principles of abstention in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) would require that the Court abstain. Accordingly, the Court denied Petitioner's Section 2241 Petition. The Court also denied a certificate of appealability, finding that jurists of reason would not find it debatable whether the Petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

         On March 2, 2017, Petitioner filed his Motion for Certificate of Appealability. On March 24, 2017, he filed his Motion in Arrest of Judgment. On April 7, 2017, he filed his Motion for Leave to File Exhibits. On April 14, 2017, he filed his Application. In his statement of issues on appeal, Petitioner states that his "parental rights were terminated, " and that he challenges the "fiduciary duty" imposed upon him by the Gwinnett County court to pay "child support." ([32] at 1).

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Legal Standard

         Applications to appeal in forma pauperis are governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Section 1915 provides, in pertinent part:

(a) (1). . . [A]ny court of the United States may authorize the commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal, or appeal therein, without prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such prisoner[1] possesses that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor. Such affidavit shall state the nature of the action, defense or appeal and affiant's belief that the person is entitled to redress.
(3) An 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)(1), (3).

         Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides, in pertinent part:

(1). . . [A] party to a district-court action who desires to appeal in forma pauperis must file a motion in the district court. The party must attach an affidavit that:
(A) shows in the detail prescribed by Form 4 of the Appendix of Forms the party's inability to pay or to give ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.