## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 13

- 1136 K ELLY S. T HOMAS, Pet i t i one r -Appe l l ant, v. D US HAN Z AT EC KY, S up er i ntendent, Pendlet on Cor re cti onalFa ci l i ty, R espo nd ent-A pp ellee

.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our tfo r the S outhernDi stricto f Indian a, Indian apolisDiv isi on. No . 1:12- cv-807- S EB-DML

— Sarah E vansBarker, Ju dge
.
S UB MI TT ED F EB RU AR Y 19, 2013

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 13, 2013

Befo re E A S T E RBR OOK, Chi e f Judg e, a nd B AUERa nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges . E A S T E RB R OO K, Ch ief Judg e . Kel l y Tho m as was s en ten ced to 65 y e ars’ i m p risonm en t for m urd er. I nd iana’s j ud i ci ar y a ffi rm ed hi s co n vic tion on a pp ealand rej ecte d h is colla te ra l at ta c k. Thom as v. State, 96 5 N
. E.2 d 70 ( I nd

. A pp . 20 12)

. A federa l di str ict j ud ge denie d T hom as’ s peti ti on f ora w ri t o fhabea s co rpus under2 N o. 13

- 1136 28 U. S

. C. § 22 54, a nd he fi l ed a no ti ce o fa ppea l

. The j ud ge decl i ned to issue a ce rt i fi cate o fappeal abi l i ty, se e 28 U
. S. C. §225 3(c), and cer ti fi ed that the a pp ealhad be ent ak eni n b ad f ai th

. S ee 28 U. S

. C. § 19 15 ( a) ( 3)

. Thu s Tho m as mustpa y the $ 45 5 appe l late fee s, b efo r e an y su bsta nt ive st e p c a n be taken on ap p eal, un less he p ers ua de s thi s c o ur tt o p e r mi th i m t o pro ceed i n f o r ma paup er is

. Tho m as ha s fi l ed a m otio n a sk i ngus t o di sr eg ar d the di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s cer t i fi c a t i o n o fb a d f a i th. He c o nt e nd s th atpr i so ne r s si m pl y ne ed no t paya ppel l at e fi l i nga nd docket i ng fees . M any a pp el l ate co urts

— in c lu d in g t h is o ne

— have hel d that the Pr i son Lit i gat i on Ref or m A ct o f 19 96 ( PLRA ), whi chs ubs ta nt i al l y r ev i se d § 19 15 a nd othe r sect i ons, does notapplyto co l l ate ra l pro ceedi ngs u n d er28 U
. S. C. §§ 2241 , 22 54, o r 2255
. S ee M ar t i n v . U nited Sta tes , 96 F .3d 85 3, 8 5 5

– 5 6 (7 th C ir. 19 96 ); Wa lk er v. O ’B rien , 2 1 6 F .3 d 62 6, 63 4 (7 th C ir. 20 00 ). I t fo ll ows, Thom as conte nd s, thatpaym ent o fappel l ate fees i s unneces sar y, m aki ng the di str i ct c ourt ’ s cert i fi cati on i rr el evant
. This ar gum ent r est s o n the m i st ak en pre m i se that appell ate fees have thei r genes i s in the PLR A

. They do no t. The y are autho r i ze d b y 2 8 U. S

. C. § 19 13 , whi chl o ng predates the PLR A

. Se cti on 1913 , w hi ch w as enacted in 18 91 , pr o vi des : “ The fee s an d c o st s to b e ch ar g ed an d col l ecte d i n each cour t o fappeals sh al l be presc ribed f r o m t i me t o t i me b y th e J u d i c i a l C o n fe r e n c e o ft he U n ite d Sta te s. Su c h fe e s a n d co st s s h all b e re as on ab le an d u n iform in a ll th e c irc u its .” T h e s c h ed u le c u rre n tly inN o. 13

- 1136 3 f or ce s ets fi l i ng and docke ti ng fees ag gr ega tin g $455 f or al l ci vi l sui ts, in c lu ding proce edi ngs under §§ 2241 , 22 54, and 2255. Ever y a pp el l ant o w es these fe es a nd m ust pr epa y the m o r o bt ain pe r m i ss i o n t o l i ti g at e w ithou t pr epa y m en t

— that i s t o say, in form a paup er is

. A li ti g an t who p r o ceeds in for m a paup er is s ti l l o wes the fee s. I fhe w i ns, the fees ar e shi fted to the adver sar y a s par t o fco sts ; i fhe l ose s, the fees ar e payabl e l i ke any o therdebt. Section 1915, lik e § 1 9 13, pred ates th e PL R A

. I f w e w ere to deem all o f§1 915 i napp l i cabl e t o c ollater alat tack s on cr i m in al j ud gm ents, j ust be cause seve ra l o fi ts subsecti ons w er e r ew ri tte n by the PLRA , then ther e would be no b as i s f o r e xc us ing pr epa y m en t o fthe fee s an d pri sone rs would be w or se off

. For it i s § 1915 ( a) ( 1) that supp l i es j ud ges ’ autho rity to al l ow li ti gat i on t o proce ed wi th o utpr epa y m en t o fthe fee s r equi r ed b y § 19 13 a nd othe r sta tutes , such a s 2 8 U.S

. C. §§ 191 2, 1914, 19 17, 19 20 , an d 19 21 . W h en sa yin g in M arti n tha t th e PLRA does not apply to col l ate ra l attack s o n cr i m i nal j ud gm ents, we m eant that the features ad ded to §1 915 by the PLRA do notapply

. There ar e t w o ofnot e. Fi rs t, §191 5( a) ( 2) and (b) re quir e cour ts to ass ess p ar tial fi l i ng fees payab l e fro m pri son tr ust a ccounts, and to ensure thatthe enti re fees ev entual l y are col l ecte d fr om thos e tr u st accounts. ( The fee f orfi l i ng a col l ate ra l at tack in d ist ric t c ou rt is on ly $ 5, w h ich T h om as p aid . Th is appeal does notpre sent the quest i on wh ethera dist ri ct cour t has di scr eti on t o or der c ol l ecti on o fthe $5 fee, o r a p o r t i o n o fth e a p p e l l a t e fe e s , i n i n s t a l l me n t s fr o m a pr i s o n t r us t a c c o un t
. S ee L o ng behn v. U nited Sta tes , 16 94 N o. 13

- 1136 F. 3d 1082 , 10 83 ( 7th Ci r. 19 99) ( “und er§1 91 5 as i t s too d bef or e the PLRA , di str i ct j ud ges o ften c oncl ud ed that som e l i ti gants w er e abl e t o pay par t, tho ugh not al l, o f th e filin g fe e” ).) Se cond, §1 915( g) pro vi des thata perso n w ho has br o ug htthr ee o r mor e f r i vo l o us s ui ts o r a ppea l s l o se s th e pr i vi l eg e o fl i ti g at i ng in form a p a uperis unl ess he c an estab li sh that he is i n p hy sical dan ger. M a rtin o bser ved that §191 5( g) is a m i sm atch f orco l l ate ra l pro ceedi ngs. Co nt i nu e d i mpr i s o nme ntdi ffe r s fr o m ph y s i c a l h a z a r d. N othi ng i n the text or bac kgr ound ofthe PLR A sugg est s that i t i s desi gn ed t o p re vent pri sone rs wh o have fi l ed f r i vo l o us c i vi l s ui ts f o r da m ag es fro m pur su i ngs er i o us chal l enges to the j ud gm ents hol ding them i n confi nem ent. Wa lk erwas a bi t m or e pr eci se thanM artin

. W hat Wa lk erhol ds ( am on g otherthi ngs) i s that a co l l ate ra l at tack under § 2241 o r §225 4 i s no t a “ci vi l act i on” f or the purpos e o f§1 915. S om e s ubsect i ons ofthatst atute es tabl i shs pec ial rul es f o r “ ci vi l a ct i o ns . ” S ec ti o ns 19 15(a)( 2) , ( b) , a nd ( g ) de alwi th“ ci vi l a ct i o ns . ” But §191 5 a s a wh ol e c ov er s m any a dd i ti onalcat ego ri es o fl i ti g at i o n. S ec ti o n 1 91 5( a) ( 1) beg i ns b y a nno unc i ng tha tthe s t a tute

— an d he nc e th e po ss ibi l i tyo fl i ti g at i ng in form a paup er is

— a p p l i e s t o “ a n y s u i t, a c t i o n o r p r o c e e di ng, ci vi l o r cri m i nal, o r appeal ther ei n”. S ecti on 1 915( a) ( 3) speaks to this br oadercat ego ry, notj ust t o “ci vi l acti ons. ” W hen a dist ri ct c ourtgr ants perm issi on under §191 5( a) ( 1) to l i ti gat e in f orm a paup er is , thatper m i ssi on car r ie s over to the ap p eal un less the d istri ct cou rt i tse l fr evo kes the perm iss ion afterdeci ding the m er i ts.N o. 13

- 1136 5 S ec ti o n 1 91 5( a) ( 3) s ay s: “ An appe almay no t be t ak en in fo rm a pauperi s i f the tr i al cour t cer ti fi es i n w ri ti ng that it i s no t t ake n i n go od fa ith. ” W e do not see any re aso n w hy tha t pr ovi si on s houl d not a pp l y t o col l ate ra l pro ceedi ngs, i n com m on with al l o fthe othe r l i ti gat i on to w hi ch §19 15( a) ( 1) r efer s. To s um u p: T he p o r t i o ns o f§ 1 9 1 5 a nd §1 915A appli cabl e e xcl usi vel y t o pri son er s’ ci vi l act i ons do not appl y t o c o l l at er ala tt ac k s o n cri m i na l j udg m en ts
. But th e po r ti o ns o f §1 91 5 th at appl y g en er al l y ar e as re l ev an t to co l l a t e r a l l i t i g a t i o n a s t o o the r s ui t s a nd a pp e a l s. Se c tio n 19 15 (a)( 3) is on e o f th os e g en er ally ap p lica b le provi si ons. W e th er efo re d en y T h om as ’s re q u es t t h at w e p er m it h im , an d a l l o th er ap p lica n ts for c olla te ra l relie f, to file appeal s without r ega rd to the fees r equi re d by § 1913 and the r eso l uti ons ofthe J ud i cial Confe re nce. Thom as i s, however, entitl ed to co ntesti n thi s co urt the pr opri etyo fthe dist ri ct j ud ge’ s decl ar ati on t h at the a pp eal has be en ta ken in bad f ai th

— a phrase that d es p i te l ay u sa ge has been und er sto od to m ean obj ecti ve f ri vol ousness . S ee Le ev. Cl i nt on , 2 0 9 F .3 d 1025 (7th Cir. 2000 ). A fr iv olous ap p eal never m eets th e stan d ard f or a ce r ti fi ca te o fa ppea l abili ty
. Buta n a ppea l c anb e no nf ri vol ous a nd st i l l fl unk the sta nd ar d establi shed by §2 25 3(c ) ( 2 ) , w h ich co n d itio n s a ce rt ifica te of ap p ea lab i l i tyo n “ a su bs ta nt i alsh ow in go fthe de ni alo fa c o nst itu tio n al rig h t.” Thom as has fi led a docum ent c apti oned “Pet i ti on f o r Le a v e t o F i l e a n d P r o c e e d o n A p p e a l In F o r ma6 N o. 13

- 1136 Pauperi s”, but i t doe s not at tem pt to dem onst ra te that th e a p p e a l i s n o n - f r i v o l o u s , l e ta l o n e th a ta c o ns ti tu
ti onali ssue i s “ su b st an ti al

. ” W e g i ve hi m 21 days to fi l e in thi s co urt a m oti on f orper m i ssion to pro ceed i n f or ma p au pe ri s ( whi chde pen ds o n de m o ns tr at i ng that he cannotpay the fees and thatthe appeal i s no t f ri vol ous) and a c er tifica te ofappeal abi l i ty ( w hi ch d ep en d s on “a su bsta nt ialshow ing of th e d en ia l o f a c on st itu tio n al rig h t” ). Failu re to m ee t t h is s c h ed u le w i l l l ead us t o dism i ss the a pp ealf orf ai l ure to pros ecute.

3- 13- 13