UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ARTHUR SUMERLIN, 

Petitioner, Civil No. 09-CV-10459

Honorable George Caram Steeh

v.

BLAINE LAFLER,

Respondent.

 /

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY [dkt. # 17] BUT GRANTING

PERMISSION TO PROCEED ON APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Before the court is Petitioner's motion for a certificate of appealability. On June 6,

2011, this court denied Petitioner’s application for habeas corpus relief, finding in part that

some of Petitioner’s claims were barred by his procedural default in the state courts.

Petitioner did not attempt to appeal this decision, but instead, he filed a motion for relief

from judgment, arguing that his claims were not defaulted. This Court denied the motion

on July 23, 2013. Petitioner seeks permission to appeal this decision to the Court of

Appeals.

A habeas petitioner is required to obtain a certificate of appealability before he can

appeal the denial of a 60(b) motion for relief from judgment which seeks to challenge the

judgment in a habeas case. See United States v. Hardin, 481 F. 3d 924, 926 (6th Cir.

2007). To obtain a certificate of appealability, a prisoner must make a substantial showing

of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), which the United States

Supreme Court has construed to mean that an applicant must show that reasonable jurists

-1-

2:09-cv-10459-GCS-CEB Doc # 18 Filed 10/31/13 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 1580
could debate that the petition could have been resolved differently or that the claims raised

deserved further review." Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003).

Reasonable jurists would not conclude that the issues raised in Petitioner's motion

for relief from judgment deserve further review. As explained in the order denying that

motion, Petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment filed in the state trial court was denied

on procedural grounds when the trial court specifically relied on Michigan Court Rule

6.508(d)(3) in denying relief. Petitioner’s motion does not explain how the Court’s analysis

is open to debate among reasonable jurists. Therefore, a certificate of appealability is

DENIED.

The standard for obtaining IFP status is less burdensome. A court may grant IFP

status if the Court finds that an appeal is being taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. §

1915(a)(3); Fed. R.App.24 (a); Foster v. Ludwick, 208 F. Supp. 2d 750, 765 (E.D. Mich.

2002). Although the court finds that Petitioner's substantive arguments have no merit, this

Court does not find that petitioner's appeal was not undertaken in good faith and will grant

his request for leave to appeal in forma pauperis.

Based upon the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is

DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis

is GRANTED.

Dated: October 31, 2013

s/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-

2:09-cv-10459-GCS-CEB Doc # 18 Filed 10/31/13 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 1581
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on

October 31, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary mail and also

on Arthur Sumerlin #498164, Ryan Correctional Facility,

17600 Ryan Road, Detroit, MI 48212.

s/Barbara Radke

Deputy Clerk

-3-

2:09-cv-10459-GCS-CEB Doc # 18 Filed 10/31/13 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 1582