Daniels v. State of Florida, 0:19-cv-62464

Petitioner Roy O. Daniels filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the Southern District of Florida.
Magistrate Judge Lisette M. Reid recommended denial and dismissal as an unauthorized second or successive petition.
The district court adopted the recommendation, dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, and declined to issue a certificate of appealability (COA).
Daniels filed a notice of appeal and moved to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal.
The court found Daniels’ notice merely rehashed substantive arguments and that his claims were without merit; it concluded no reasonable jurist would debate the procedural ruling.
The court certified the appeal was not taken in good faith and denied Daniels’ motion to proceed IFP (Order dated December 4, 2019).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the appeal is taken in good faith for purposes of IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)	Daniels seeks appellate review of his habeas claims (rehashes merits)	Appeal is frivolous; COA denied; claims lack merit so appeal has little chance of success	Court certified the appeal was not taken in good faith and denied IFP
Whether the habeas petition is an unauthorized second or successive petition	Daniels presses the substantive constitutional claims in his petition and on appeal	Petition is successive and thus subject to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction	Court dismissed the petition as an unauthorized second or successive petition and declined to issue a COA

Ghee v. Retailers Nat’l Bank, [citation="271 F. App'x 858"] (11th Cir. 2008) (good-faith standard for appeals filed IFP)
Carroll v. Gross, 984 F.2d 392 (11th Cir. 1993) (when an IFP appeal is frivolous)
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (Sup. Ct. 2000) (certificate of appealability standard in habeas cases)
Franklin v. Hightower, 215 F.3d 1196 (11th Cir. 2000) (application of COA requirements to procedural rulings)