Merida v. Ashbel T. Wall, 1:14-cv-00339

Javier Merida filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition and paid the $5.00 filing fee for the action but moved to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) for appeal.
Merida's inmate statement showed a $5,990.65 spending balance and a $1,000 encumbered balance as of October 7, 2015.
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24 and Form 4 govern the affidavit requirements for IFP on appeal.
The district court dismissed Merida’s habeas petition: three grounds were procedurally defaulted; five ineffective-assistance claims were found meritless.
The district court also denied a certificate of appealability (COA), finding Merida failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
Magistrate Judge Almond recommended denying Merida’s motion to proceed IFP on appeal, finding Merida had funds and that the appeal was not taken in good faith (frivolous).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Merida may proceed IFP on appeal	Merida sought IFP status and submitted an affidavit	District Court: Merida has sufficient funds and did not meet good-faith standard	IFP denied; Merida has funds and appeal not in good faith
Whether the appeal is taken in good faith (§ 1915(a)(3))	Merida did not identify issues to be raised on appeal	Appeal is frivolous given procedural defaults, meritless IAC claims, and denied COA	Appeal deemed not taken in good faith; certification that appeal is not IFP-compliant

United States v. Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4 (1st Cir.) (failure to file timely, specific objections waives right to district-court review)
Park Motor Mart, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 616 F.2d 603 (1st Cir.) (procedural default of objection bars appellate review)