Boone v. Price (INMATE 3)

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION

DAUOD BOONE, AIS # 276751, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACT. NO.2:15-cv-556-ECM ) (WO) CHERYL PRICE, et al., ) ) Respondents. )

O R D E R Now pending before the Court is Petitioner Daoud Boone’s pro se motion for a certificate of appealability (doc. 46). The motion is due to be denied. To mandate the issuance of a certificate of appealability, a petitioner must make a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); see also Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983). Further, “[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). In making this determination as to good faith, the 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 1981) (per curiam). Applying these standards, the Court finds that Boone has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. In addition, the Court is of the opinion that Boone’s appeal has no legal or factual basis and, accordingly, is frivolous and not taken in good faith. See Rudolph v. Allen, 666 F.2d 519, 520 (11th Cir. 1982) (per curiam). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Boone’s motion for a certificate of appealability (doc. 46) is DENIED. Done this 9th day of December, 2021.

/s/ Emily C. Marks EMILY C. MARKS CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE