IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION

JAMES HENRY DAVIS, # 267569, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) Civil Action No. v. ) 2:19-cv-46-WHA-JTA ) (WO) CHRISTOPHER GORDY, et al., ) ) Respondents. )

ORDER

Petitioner James Henry Davis has filed a pro se notice of appeal, which the Court construes to contain a motion for a certificate of appealability and a motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. (Doc. 22.) These motions are due to be denied. A certificate of appealability is necessary before a petitioner may pursue an appeal in a habeas corpus proceeding. See

(c). To mandate the issuance of a certificate of appealability, a petitioner must make a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

(c)(2); see also Barefoot v. Estelle,

(1983). Further, “[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.”

(a)(3). In making this determination as to good faith, the Court must use an objective standard, such as whether the appeal is “frivolous,” Coppedge v. United States,

(1962), or “has no substantive merit,” United States v. Bottoson,

(5th Cir. Unit B May 1981) (per curiam). Applying these standards, the Court finds that Davis has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. In addition, the Court is of the opinion that

Davis’s appeal has no legal or factual basis and, accordingly, is frivolous and not taken in good faith. See Rudolph v. Allen,

(11th Cir. 1982) (per curiam). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Davis’s motion for a certificate of appealability and motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (Doc. 22) are DENIED. DONE this 14th day of December, 2021.

/s/ W. Harold Albritton W. HAROLD ALBRITTON SENIOR UNITED STATE DISTRICT JUDGE