Anderson v. Birkholz
- Susan Nelson
- 0:21-cv-01420
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Anderson v. Birkholz, Judge Nelson allowed Anderson to appeal without prepaying fees but denied his certificate request because he did not need one.
Melvin Anderson, who was allowed to pursue his appeal without prepaying fees and did not need a certificate of appealability.
What happened
In Anderson v. Birkholz, federal prisoner Melvin Anderson asked to appeal without prepaying court fees and asked for a certificate required in some detention cases. He represented himself.
The court granted Anderson’s request to proceed without prepaying fees because he qualified financially and his appeal was not frivolous. It denied his certificate request because his federal detention challenge was brought under a law that does not require that certificate.
Judge Nelson left in place the court’s view that Anderson’s detention petition had been correctly dismissed, but this order addressed only his appeal-related requests.
The detailed version
- Anderson v. Birkholz · No. 0:21-cv-01420
- Susan Nelson
- Oct. 4, 2021
Background
Melvin Anderson, a federal prisoner representing himself, filed an application to proceed without prepaying fees on appeal and a motion requesting a certificate of appealability. A certificate of appealability is required for appeals from certain habeas proceedings, including state-court detention cases and proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
The opinion states that Anderson’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus had been dismissed and that the court continued to believe the dismissal was correct. It also states that Anderson’s petition was brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, not § 2255, and that he is a federal prisoner.
Rulings
The court granted Anderson’s application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. In plain terms, Anderson qualified financially to pursue the appeal without prepaying the required court fees, and the court concluded that his appeal was not frivolous.
The court denied Anderson’s motion requesting a certificate of appealability. It explained that Anderson did not need a certificate to appeal because his § 2241 petition did not fall within the categories covered by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1).
Effect of the Order
This order ruled on Anderson’s requests concerning his appeal. It did not reconsider the earlier dismissal of his petition; the court stated that it continued to regard that dismissal as correct.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.