Anderson v. Birkholz
Anderson v. Birkholz
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Melvin Anderson, Case No. 21-CV-1420 (SRN/TNL) Petitioner, v. ORDER B. Birkholz, Kyja Winger, and Michael Carvajal, Respondents.
Melvin Anderson, Federal Prison Camp, P.O. Box 1000, Duluth, MN 55814, Pro Se.
Ana H. Voss and Chad A. Blumenfield, U.S. Attorney’s Office, 300 S. 4th St., Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55415, for Respondents.
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Melvin Anderson’s (1) application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal [Doc. No. 12] and (2) Motion for Request for Certificate of Appealability [ECF No. 14 (“COA Motion”)].
After review, this Court concludes that Anderson qualifies financially for IFP status. This Court also concludes that, although it continues to believe that Anderson’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus was correctly dismissed, his appeal is not frivolous as the Supreme Court has defined that term. Accordingly, Anderson’s IFP application is granted.
The COA Motion, on the other hand, is denied: Anderson does not need a COA to proceed with his appeal. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1), “[u]nless a circuit justice or judge issues a [COA], an appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from (A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court; or (B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.” Anderson’s habeas petition does not fit into either of these categories: he is a federal prisoner, and his petition here was under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, not 28 U.S.C. § 2255. [See, e.g., ECF No. 1.] As a result, he can proceed with his appeal without a COA. See, e.g., Winburn v. Nagy, 956 F.3d 909, 912 (6th Cir. 2020); Bruce v. Warden Lewisburg USP, 868 F.3d 170, 177 (3d Cir. 2017); Eldridge v. Berkebile, 791 F.3d 1239, 1241 (10th Cir. 2015).
ORDER Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. Petitioner Melvin Anderson’s application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal [Doc. No. 12] is GRANTED.
2. Anderson’s Motion for Request for Certificate of Appealability [Doc. No. 14] is DENIED, because Anderson does not need a certificate of appealability to appeal this Court’s denial of Anderson’s petition.
Dated: October 4, 2021 s/Susan Richard Nelson SUSAN RICHARD NELSON United States District Judge
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Melvin Anderson, Case No. 21-CV-1420 (SRN/TNL) Petitioner, v. ORDER B. Birkholz, Kyja Winger, and Michael Carvajal, Respondents.
Melvin Anderson, Federal Prison Camp, P.O. Box 1000, Duluth, MN 55814, Pro Se.
Ana H. Voss and Chad A. Blumenfield, U.S. Attorney’s Office, 300 S. 4th St., Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55415, for Respondents.
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Melvin Anderson’s (1) application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal [Doc. No. 12] and (2) Motion for Request for Certificate of Appealability [ECF No. 14 (“COA Motion”)].
After review, this Court concludes that Anderson qualifies financially for IFP status. This Court also concludes that, although it continues to believe that Anderson’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus was correctly dismissed, his appeal is not frivolous as the Supreme Court has defined that term. Accordingly, Anderson’s IFP application is granted.
The COA Motion, on the other hand, is denied: Anderson does not need a COA to proceed with his appeal. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1), “[u]nless a circuit justice or judge issues a [COA], an appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from (A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court; or (B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.” Anderson’s habeas petition does not fit into either of these categories: he is a federal prisoner, and his petition here was under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, not 28 U.S.C. § 2255. [See, e.g., ECF No. 1.] As a result, he can proceed with his appeal without a COA. See, e.g., Winburn v. Nagy, 956 F.3d 909, 912 (6th Cir. 2020); Bruce v. Warden Lewisburg USP, 868 F.3d 170, 177 (3d Cir. 2017); Eldridge v. Berkebile, 791 F.3d 1239, 1241 (10th Cir. 2015).
ORDER Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. Petitioner Melvin Anderson’s application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal [Doc. No. 12] is GRANTED.
2. Anderson’s Motion for Request for Certificate of Appealability [Doc. No. 14] is DENIED, because Anderson does not need a certificate of appealability to appeal this Court’s denial of Anderson’s petition.
Dated: October 4, 2021 s/Susan Richard Nelson SUSAN RICHARD NELSON United States District Judge
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.