United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
DR. MIKE REDFORD, Juris; President U.S. Cyberwar Research Institute, Washington, D.C., Petitioner,
WARDEN CONLEY, Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR. Judge
matter is before the Court on Petitioner Mike Redford's
("Petitioner") Application to Appeal In Forma
Pauperis  ("Application"). Also before the
Court are Petitioner's Motion for Certificate of
Appealability , Motion in Arrest of Judgment , and
Motion for Leave to File Exhibits .
February 7, 2017, the Court issued its Order  denying
Petitioner's amended 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition .
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.
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." ( at 1).
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
(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 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
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), (3).
of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides, in
(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 ...