Baldwin v. USA, No. 3:2018cv00420 - Document 11 (N.D. Ind. 2019)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: Mr. Baldwin's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal [Doc. No. 66 in 3:17cr70][Doc. No. 10 in 3:18cv420] and implied request for a certificate of appealability are DENIED. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 12/18/2019. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(rmc)

Download PDF
Baldwin v. USA Doc. 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION JOHN ANTHONY BALDWIN, JR., Petitioner vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CAUSE NO. 3:18-CV-420 RLM (Arising out of 3:17-CR-70 RLM) OPINION and ORDER Defendant John Baldwin, Jr., filed an appeal challenging the court’s October 9, 2019 order denying his motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. His motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal and implied request for a certificate of appealability are before the court. Issuance of a certificate of appealability requires the court to find that Mr. Baldwin has made “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). He hasn’t done that. A financially indigent person may be permitted to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis unless the court “certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith.” Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3). The court must determine “that a reasonable person could suppose that the appeal has some merit.” Walker v. O’Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 632 (7th Cir. 2000). The court would be hard-pressed to make such a finding in this case, and concludes that his appeal is not taken in good faith. Dockets.Justia.com Based on the foregoing, Mr. Baldwin’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal [Doc. No. 66 in 3:17cr70][Doc. No. 10 in 3:18cv420] and implied request for a certificate of appealability are DENIED. SO ORDERED. ENTERED: December 18, 2019 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. Judge United States District Court cc: J. Baldwin 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.