Davis v. Rardin
- John Tunheim
- 0:22-cv-02854
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 6
In Davis v. Rardin, Judge Tunheim denied Davis’s request to proceed without paying appeal fees because the appeal was premature and legally frivolous.
William Scott Davis, Jr.’s request to avoid paying the filing fee for his appeal was denied; his underlying habeas petition remained undecided.
What happened
In Davis v. Rardin, William Scott Davis, Jr. challenged his sentence in a pending petition arguing that his time credit was miscalculated and that prison programs were not properly implemented. He appealed an earlier order about magistrate-judge review and appointment of counsel and asked to proceed without paying appeal fees.
The court explained that appeals generally must wait until the district court issues a final decision. Because the court had not yet decided Davis’s habeas petition, and because an order denying counsel in a habeas case is not immediately appealable, the appeals court lacked jurisdiction over Davis’s appeal.
Judge Tunheim ruled that the appeal was not taken in good faith because it was legally frivolous, and denied Davis’s motion to proceed without paying appeal fees. The court stated that Davis may appeal later, after a final decision on his habeas petition.
The detailed version
- Davis v. Rardin · No. 0:22-cv-02854
- John Tunheim
- Apr. 11, 2023
Background
William Scott Davis, Jr., proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his sentence. He alleged that his time credit was improperly calculated by 575 days and that the Bureau of Prisons failed to properly implement programs and activities.
Along with the petition, Davis asked for appointment of counsel and objected to having a United States magistrate judge review the matter, requesting review by an Article III district judge. Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois denied the request for counsel without prejudice and denied the request for district-judge-only review with prejudice. The district court later affirmed that order, explaining that consent was not required for magistrate-judge review of the habeas petition and that Davis had not shown sufficient legal or factual complexity to require appointed counsel.
Davis then appealed the district court’s March 14, 2023 order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and asked to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without prepaying the appellate filing fee.
Reasoning
A party generally may appeal only after the district court issues a final decision—one that reaches the end of the case. The court had not granted or denied Davis’s habeas petition, so its March 14 order was not final. The court also relied on Eighth Circuit precedent holding that an order denying appointment of counsel in a habeas proceeding is not immediately appealable.
Because the order was not final and was not otherwise immediately appealable, the district court concluded that the Eighth Circuit lacked jurisdiction over Davis’s appeal. An appeal that lacks an arguable legal or factual basis is legally frivolous. The court therefore concluded that Davis’s appeal was not taken in good faith, even though he had previously been allowed to proceed without prepaying fees in the district court.
Ruling
The court denied Davis’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. It did not decide the merits of Davis’s habeas petition. The court stated that Davis may later appeal to the Eighth Circuit after the district court issues a final decision on that petition.
Judge John R. Tunheim entered the order.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.