Smith v. Eischen

Background

Darrell D. Smith, representing himself, is serving a 175-month sentence at the Federal Prison Camp in Duluth after pleading guilty to wire fraud and aggravated identity theft. He filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the validity of a prior tax conviction and his current sentence.

The court previously adopted recommendations from a magistrate judge and dismissed three of Smith’s four claims. It also dismissed parts of the remaining claim, including parts challenging the prior tax conviction, the imposition of the current sentence, and consecutive sentences. The court later adopted another recommendation and dismissed the remaining claim. The opinion notes that this dismissal was without prejudice, meaning Smith could make necessary changes and refile, but that the court would lack jurisdiction over such claims without a showing that a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was inadequate or ineffective.

Smith appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and applied to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the full appellate filing fee.

Legal standard

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a person who cannot afford the full filing fee may seek permission to proceed without paying it. But even an indigent litigant cannot receive that status if the district court finds that the appeal is not taken in good faith. The court applies an objective standard and considers whether the issues on appeal are factually or legally frivolous. A legal argument is frivolous when none of its legal points can reasonably be argued on their merits.

Court’s analysis

Smith’s notice of appeal stated that the judge had not addressed several statutory questions from his earlier arguments. The court found that statement incorrect. It said that it had thoroughly addressed Smith’s arguments about the calculation of time served and had concluded that the Bureau of Prisons correctly calculated that time under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b).

The court also explained that it did not reach the merits of Smith’s challenge to the validity of his conviction because a motion under § 2255 was the proper way to raise that challenge. The court had previously concluded that the statutory exception allowing a § 2241 petition did not apply merely because Smith’s § 2255 motion had been dismissed as untimely.

Order

The court concluded that none of the claims Smith intended to raise on appeal could reasonably be argued on their merits and therefore found that the appeal was not taken in good faith. It denied Smith’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis on Appeal [Docket No. 25].