Samuel Harris v. Sheriff Heath Jackson

• Court: District Court, S.D. Alabama
• Decided: June 17, 2026
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00344
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

SAMUEL HARRIS, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) CIV. ACT. NO. 1:25-cv-344-TFM-B ) SHERIFF HEATH JACKSON ) ) Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On April 30, 2026, the Magistrate Judge entered a report and recommendation which recommends Petitioner’s Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 7) be dismissed without prejudice. See Doc. 11. No objections were filed. After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the issues raised, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Petition for Habeas Corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 7) is DISMISSED without prejudice. Further, Petitioner’s “Writ of Mandamus (Doc. 3) and “Motion for Final Disposition of Indictment” (Doc. 9) are both DENIED. The Court further finds that Petitioner is not entitled to a Certificate of Appealability. Additionally, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) 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);1 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). Stated differently: This circuit has defined a frivolous appeal under section 1915(d) as being one “without arguable merit.” Harris v. Menendez, 817 F.2d 737, 739 (11th Cir.1987) (quoting Watson v. Ault, 525 F.2d 886, 892 (5th Cir.1976)). “Arguable means capable of being convincingly argued.” Moreland v. Wharton, 899 F.2d 1168, 1170 (11th Cir.1990) (per curiam) (quoting Menendez, 817 F.2d at 740 n.5); see Clark, 915 F.2d at 639 (“A lawsuit [under section 1915(d)] is frivolous if the ‘plaintiff's realistic chances of ultimate success are slight.’” (quoting Moreland, 899 F.2d at 1170)).

Sun v. Forrester, 939 F.2d 924, 925 (11th Cir. 1991); see also Weeks v. Jones, 100 F.3d 124, 127 (11th Cir. 1996) (stating that “[f]actual allegations are frivolous for purpose of [28 U.S.C.] § 1915(d) when they are ‘clearly baseless;’ legal theories are frivolous when they are ‘indisputably meritless.’”) (citations omitted). The Court further certifies that any appeal would be without merit and not taken in good faith and therefore, Petitioner is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Final Judgment shall issue separately in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of June, 2026. /s/Terry F. Moorer TERRY F. MOORER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE