IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAMES DOUGLAS LEWIS, JR. )

AIS #00302892, )

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-00273-CB-N

)

CYNTHIA STEWART,1 )

Respondent. )

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Petitioner James Douglas Lewis, Jr., an Alabama prisoner proceeding pro se

and in forma pauperis, has filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 

U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1). The Respondent, through the Office of the Attorney General 

of the State of Alabama, has timely filed an Answer (Doc. 13) to the petition, and 

Lewis subsequently filed a brief in support of his petition (Doc. 26), along with two

motions for discovery (Docs. 19, 20), a motion for a trial by jury (Doc. 21), a motion 

to stay his state court criminal proceedings during the pendency of his present 

challenge to his extradition (Doc. 23), and a “Motion for Injunctive Relief and the 

Imposition of Sanctions” (Doc. 31).

Under S.D. Ala. GenLR 72(b) (effective Aug. 1, 2015), Lewis’s § 2241 petition 

and related motions have been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for 

 1 A review of the Alabama Department of Corrections’s online prisoner tracker 

(http://www.doc.state.al.us/InmateSearch.aspx (last visited May 27, 2016)) indicates that 

Lewis is currently incarcerated at ADOC’s Fountain Correctional Facility. Accordingly, 

Cynthia Stewart, current warden of that facility (see

http://www.doc.state.al.us/facility.aspx?loc=17), is substituted as the Respondent in this 

action. See 28 U.S.C. § 2242; Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 435 (2004).

Case 1:15-cv-00273-CB-N Document 33 Filed 05/31/16 Page 1 of 15
2

entry of a recommendation as to the appropriate disposition, in accordance with 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C) and S.D. Ala. GenLR 72(a)(2)(R) (effective Aug. 1, 2015). 

Upon consideration, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Lewis’s § 2241 petition 

(Doc. 1) and related motions (Docs. 19 – 21, 23, 31) be DENIED and that this action 

be DISMISSED with prejudice. The undersigned further RECOMMENDS that 

Lewis be found not entitled either to a Certificate of Appealability or to proceed in 

forma pauperis on appeal.

I. Background

On April 1, 2013, a criminal complaint against Lewis was filed in the District 

Court of Baldwin County, Alabama, alleging that, on or about July 26, 2012, Lewis 

possessed, obtained, received, sold, or used a firearm with an altered or obliterated 

identification; a warrant for his arrest was issued that same day. (Doc. 13-1 at 8 –

9). At some point after the events leading to the complaint, Lewis left the State of 

Alabama; he was apprehended by the U.S. Marshals Fugitive Task Force in 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on August 14, 2013. (Doc. 1at 38 [Pennsylvania Police 

Fugitive Complaint]). The State of Alabama requested that the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania extradite Lewis; Pennsylvania issued an Executive Warrant 

authorizing Lewis’s extradition to Alabama on or about November 13, 2013. (Doc. 

13-1 at 2 – 6).

In the meantime, the grand jury of the Circuit Court of Baldwin County, 

Alabama, issued a two-count indictment against Lewis on September 20, 2013. 

(Doc. 13-2). In January 2014, following his extradition to Alabama, Lewis was 

Case 1:15-cv-00273-CB-N Document 33 Filed 05/31/16 Page 2 of 15
3

appointed counsel and waived arraignment on the indictment. (See Doc. 13-4 at 2 –

3 [Docket Sheet of Baldwin County Case # CC-2013-002193.00]). On July 29, 2014, 

Lewis, through appointed counsel, filed with the circuit court a “Notice to Court of 

Defendant’s Intention to Make Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus” “to test the 

legality of his arrest and extradition pursuant to Alabama Code Section 15-9-38.” 

(Doc. 1 at 54). A hearing was held on the notice on September 22, 2014, after which 

the circuit court set a deadline for the parties to file “written briefs.” (Id. at 55 –

65). 

On October 14, 2014, the circuit court entered an order stating, in full: 

“Defendant’s motion for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED.” (Id. at 68). Lewis 

appealed that order (id. at 69 – 70), but the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals 

dismissed the appeal on April 14, 2015, because the circuit court’s ruling was not a 

“final judgment or conviction from which an appeal will lie.” (Id. at 73). The Court 

of Criminal Appeals also noted that no habeas corpus petition was actually filed in 

the circuit court. (Id. n.1).

On May 18, 2015 (the date Lewis certifies he delivered the petition to jail 

officials for mailing (see id. at 12)),2 while his state criminal charges were still 

 2 Under “the prison mailbox rule, ... ‘a pro se prisoner’s court filing is deemed filed on the 

date it is delivered to prison authorities for mailing.’ ” Daniels v. United States, 809 F.3d 

588, 589 (11th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (quoting Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287, 1290 n.2 

(11th Cir. 2009)). Courts “assume, ‘[a]bsent evidence to the contrary, ... that a prisoner 

delivered a filing to prison authorities on the date that he signed it.’ ” Id. (quoting Jeffries 

v. United States, 748 F.3d 1310, 1314 (11th Cir. 2014) (per curiam)).

Case 1:15-cv-00273-CB-N Document 33 Filed 05/31/16 Page 3 of 15
4

pending, Lewis filed the instant § 2241 petition (Doc. 1),3 expressly “challenging the 

legality of his extradition to Alabama, claiming both the state of Pennsylvania & 

Alabama violated his constitutional rights.” (Id. at 2). On February 1, 2016, Lewis 

was convicted in Baldwin County Circuit Court and sentenced to a term of 

imprisonment in the custody of the Alabama Department of Corrections. (See Docs. 

27, 28; Ala. Dep’t of Corr.’s online prisoner locator 

(http://www.doc.state.al.us/InmateHistory.aspx (last visited May 27, 2016)); 

Baldwin County Circuit Court Case Nos. CC-2013-002193.00 & CC-2014-001455.00 

(accessed via https://v2.alacourt.com/)4). A review of the publicly available docket of 

Lewis’s Baldwin County criminal cases indicates that, as of the date of this Report 

and Recommendation, Lewis has not appealed or collaterally attacked his 

convictions.

 3 “[B]ecause this petition for habeas relief is a pre-trial petition it would only be properly 

asserted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.” Hughes v. Attorney Gen. of Fla., 377 F.3d 1258, 

1261 (11th Cir. 2004). See also Stacey v. Warden, Apalachee Corr. Inst., 854 F.2d 401, 403 

n.1 (11th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (“Pre-trial habeas petitions ... are properly brought under 

28 U.S.C. § 2241, which applies to persons in custody regardless of whether final judgment 

has been rendered.”).

4 “[A] district court may take judicial notice of matters of public record...” Halmos v. 

Bomardier Aerospace Corp., 404 F. App'x 376, 377 (11th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) 

(unpublished) (citing Bryant v. Avado Brands, Inc., 187 F.3d 1271, 1278 (11th Cir. 1999)). 

See also Cunningham v. Dist. Attorney's Office for Escambia Cty., 592 F.3d 1237, 1255 (11th 

Cir. 2010) (“We accept all the facts in the complaint as true and view them in the light most 

favorable to the nonmoving party ... At the same time, however, we also take judicial notice 

of the state and federal court proceedings in which Cunningham was convicted or attacked 

his conviction.”); Keith v. DeKalb Cty., Ga., 749 F.3d 1034, 1041 & n.18 (11th Cir. 2014) 

(taking judicial notice of records from Georgia’s DeKalb County Superior Court Online 

Judicial System).

Case 1:15-cv-00273-CB-N Document 33 Filed 05/31/16 Page 4 of 15
5

II. Analysis

A. Lewis is due no relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241

Lewis’s § 2241 petition alleges that his extradition was carried out in 

violation of both his “constitutional rights” and his rights under the Uniform 

Criminal Extradition Action (“UCEA”), asserting fourteen grounds for relief:

1. Denied right to counsel during his arrest, detention, and extradition 

proceedings in Pennsylvania.

2. Denied opportunity to file challenges to legality of his arrest in Pennsylvania, 

and denied a hearing under the UCEA on same.

3. Held in Pennsylvania custody beyond the deadline for Alabama to present a 

Governor’s warrant had expired on November 12, 2013.

4. Denied right to due process by not being granted a hearing to challenge his 

continued confinement in Pennsylvania after November 12, 2013.

5. Unlawfully held in Pennsylvania based on an invalid Alabama arrest 

warrant.

6. Denied discovery of documents concerning his extradition.

7. Denied “right to self-represent,” causing him to be detained without 

representation for 51 days after extradition to Alabama.

8. Denial of various rights under the UCEA.

9. Denial of “right to a fair & speedy trial.” 

10.Denial of right “to have effective and knowledgeable counsel” appointed to 

challenge extradition.

Case 1:15-cv-00273-CB-N Document 33 Filed 05/31/16 Page 5 of 15
6

11.Violation by Alabama of “clear constitutionally imposed duty to take 

affirmative action to secure [Lewis’s] speedy return to state for trial.”

12.Denial of right to counsel during his appeal of habeas corpus ruling.

13.Denial of due process by charging Lewis with additional crimes after being 

returned to Alabama, despite alleged unlawfulness of extradition.

14.Evidence used to charge Lewis and issue arrest warrant was based “strictly 

on hearsay testimony” and was insufficient to support Lewis’s arrest in and 

extradition from Pennsylvania.

As the State’s response correctly notes, Lewis’s § 2241 petition is due to be 

denied because he did not file it until after being extradited to Alabama.

In the case of extradition, “[o]nce a fugitive has been brought within 

custody of the demanding state, legality of extradition is no longer 

proper subject of any legal attack by him.” Siegel v. Edwards, 566 F.2d 

958, 960 (5th Cir. 1978) (per curiam). Specifically, “a person forcibly 

abducted from one state without warrant or authority of law and 

placed in the demanding state’s custody does not have a claim for 

release in habeas corpus.” Johnson v. Buie, 312 F. Supp. 1349, 1351 

(W.D. Mo. 1970) (cited with approval in Siegel, 566 F.2d at 960). “Once 

the fugitive is returned to the demanding state, the right to challenge 

extradition becomes moot: the fugitive is no longer being detained by 

the asylum state, and so, the legality of his or her detention there is no

longer at issue.” Barton v. Norrod, 106 F.3d 1289, 1298 (6th Cir. 1997). 

Thus, ... federal habeas corpus is not available to a person extradited 

in violation of his or her federally protected rights, even where the 

extradition itself was illegal ...

Harden v. Pataki, 320 F.3d 1289, 1299 (11th Cir. 2003) (footnote omitted). See also 

Beachem v. Attorney Gen. of Missouri, 808 F.2d 1303, 1304 (8th Cir. 1987) (per 

curiam) (“[T]he alleged violation of the UCEA is not grounds for relief because, once 

in Missouri, Beachem no longer could challenge the validity of the extradition. In 

Case 1:15-cv-00273-CB-N Document 33 Filed 05/31/16 Page 6 of 15
7

Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519, 522, 72 S. Ct. 509, 511–12, 96 L. Ed. 541 (1952) the 

Supreme Court stated that ‘the power of a court to try a person for crime is not 

impaired by the fact that he had been brought within the court's jurisdiction by 

reason of a “forcible abduction.” ’ Further, ‘nothing in the Constitution * * * 

requires a court to permit a guilty person rightfully convicted to escape justice 

because he was brought to trial against his will.’ Id. The same reasoning applies to 

violations of UCEA.”). Thus, Lewis is due no habeas relief for any of his claims of 

unlawful extradition.

Lewis’s assertions that his allegedly unlawful extradition deprived Alabama 

of jurisdiction to try him on the charges for which he was extradited is without 

merit, as “the jurisdiction of a trial court over a criminal defendant is not vitiated by 

the violation of extradition procedures.” Harden, 320 F.3d at 1296 (citing Lascelles 

v. Georgia, 148 U.S. 537, 544 (1893) (“The jurisdiction of the court in which the 

indictment is found is not impaired by the manner in which the accused is brought 

before it.”)). See also Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436, 440-41 (1886) (“[F]or mere 

irregularities in the manner in which he may be brought into custody of the law, we 

do not think [a criminal defendant] is entitled to say that he should not be tried at 

all for the crime with which he is charged in a regular indictment ... [W]hen the 

governor of one state voluntarily surrenders a fugitive from the justice of another 

state to answer for his alleged offenses, it is hardly a proper subject of inquiry on 

the trial of the case to examine into the details of the proceedings by which the 

demand was made by the one state, and the manner in which it was responded to 

Case 1:15-cv-00273-CB-N Document 33 Filed 05/31/16 Page 7 of 15
8

by the other.”); Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519, 522 (1952) (“This Court has never 

departed from the rule ... that the power of a court to try a person for crime is not 

impaired by the fact that he had been brought within the court's jurisdiction by 

reason of a ‘forcible abduction.’ ”). Thus, Lewis’s motion to stay his state court 

criminal proceedings during the pendency of his present challenge to his extradition 

(Doc. 23) is due to be DENIED, to the extent it has not been rendered moot by his 

subsequent conviction and sentence.

Finally, to the extent Lewis is attempting to challenge aspects of his Alabama 

criminal proceedings other than his extradition, those claims are clearly 

unexhausted, as the State’s response correctly points out. See 28 U.S.C. § 

2254(b)(1); Hughes v. Attorney Gen. of Fla., 377 F.3d 1258, 1262 & n.4 (11th Cir. 

2004) (noting that exhaustion requirement of § 2254(b) applies to all habeas corpus 

actions by state prisoners). Nothing in the record indicates that Lewis appealed 

any pre-trial decisions of the Baldwin County Circuit Court other than its denial of 

habeas relief challenging his extradition.5

 5 “When a petitioner seeks federal habeas relief prior to a pending state criminal trial 

the petitioner must satisfy the ‘Younger abstention hurdles’ before the federal courts can 

grant such relief.” Hughes, 377 F.3d at 1262. “In Younger[ v. Harris], 401 U.S. 37, 91 S. Ct. 

746, 27 L. Ed. 2d 669[ (1971)], the Supreme Court established that ‘absent extraordinary 

circumstances federal courts should not enjoin pending state criminal prosecutions.’ ” Id. at 

1262 (quoting New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. Council of New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350, 364 

(1989)). “However, Younger abstention is inappropriate if there is no pending state 

criminal prosecution of the plaintiff.” Turner v. Broward Sheriff's Office, 542 F. App'x 764, 

766 (11th Cir. Oct. 4, 2013) (citing Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 462, (1974), as “noting 

that the principles underlying Younger’s abstention doctrine, including equity, comity, and 

federalism, have little force where there is no pending state proceeding”)). As stated 

previously, Lewis’s state criminal prosecution is no longer pending. Thus, the undersigned 

will not address whether Younger abstention applies in this action.

The undersigned will also not construe Lewis’s § 2241 petition as a petition under 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his recently imposed Alabama criminal judgment. As stated 

Case 1:15-cv-00273-CB-N Document 33 Filed 05/31/16 Page 8 of 15
9

For these reasons, the undersigned finds that Lewis is due no relief under § 

2241 on his present petition.6 7

 

previously, in order to seek relief under § 2254, Lewis must first exhaust his state court 

remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1).

6 Thus, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Lewis’s motion for a trial by jury (Doc. 

21) be DENIED, both because dismissal of this action moots the request and because Lewis 

is not entitled to a jury trial in a habeas action. See Smith v. Wilson, 196 F. App'x 430, 431 

(7th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (unpublished) (“Smith now argues that he was entitled to a 

jury trial on this factual dispute, but the contention is frivolous. The court is the sole 

factfinder in collateral proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See § 2254(e). A collateral 

attack is not an action ‘at law’ to which the seventh amendment applies.”); Richard v. 

Norris, No. 5:09CV00087 BSM, 2009 WL 2462387, at *6 (E.D. Ark. Aug. 11, 2009) (“No 

right to a jury trial exists in habeas corpus proceedings filed in federal court by a prisoner 

in state custody. See Wickliffe v. Clark, 783 F. Supp. 389, 390 (N.D. Ind.1991) (this 

principle is ‘elementary and beyond dispute’).”). The undersigned also RECOMMENDS

that Lewis’s motions for discovery (Docs. 19, 20) be DENIED as unnecessary.

7 “Federal courts are obligated to look beyond the label of a pro se inmate’s motion to 

determine if it is cognizable under a different statutory framework.” United States v. 

Stossel, 348 F.3d 1320, 1322 n.2 (11th Cir. 2003) (citing United States v. Jordan, 915 F.2d 

622, 624–25 (11th Cir. 1990). In addition to habeas relief, Lewis requests that the Court 

“allow him to proceed with civil action against all parties responsible for his illegal 

detention, and do so with prejudice against the State of Alabama.” (Doc. 1 at 11). The 

Eleventh Circuit, noting that, “because federal habeas corpus is not available to a person 

extradited in violation of his or her federally protected rights, even where the extradition 

itself was illegal, [42 U.S.C. ]§ 1983 must be,” has held that causes of action are available 

under § 1983 when officials violate extradition procedures protected by the Constitution 

and laws of the United States, and when violations of state extradition law cause the 

deprivation of rights protected by the Constitution and statutes of the United States. See 

Harden, 320 F.3d at 1292-1302. Moreover, claims “filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

seeking damages and declaratory relief for the violation of a state prisoner’s federally 

protected extradition rights [are] not automatically barred by Heck” v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 

477 (1994). Id. at 1301-02. 

Here, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Court decline to construe Lewis’s § 

2241 petition as a § 1983 complaint asserting deprivation of rights in connection with his 

extradition. The only relief Lewis expressly requests in his petition is release from 

confinement (see Doc. 1 at 11), which is unavailable under § 1983. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 

411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973) (“[W]hen a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration 

of his physical imprisonment [under § 1983], and the relief he seeks is a determination that 

he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole 

federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus.”); Harden, 320 F3d. at 1294 n.6 (“Because nonprospective injunctive relief in the case of procedural violations during extradition could 

only mean immediate release from confinement, Harden’s prayer in this regard is 

foreclosed by Preiser.”). Moreover, Lewis has indicated he understands the difference 

Case 1:15-cv-00273-CB-N Document 33 Filed 05/31/16 Page 9 of 15
10

B. Motion for Injunctive Relief and the Imposition of Sanctions

Lewis recently filed with the Court a document dated May 18, 2016, and 

styled “Motion for Injunctive Relief and the Imposition of Sanctions” (Doc. 31). The 

“Motion for Injunctive Relief” challenges Lewis’s current incarceration with the 

Alabama Department of Corrections following his February 2016 guilty plea and 

sentence in Baldwin County Circuit Court and demands that this Court order his 

return to the Baldwin County Corrections Center. Lewis asserts that ADOC and 

Baldwin County officials had no authority to transfer him into state custody while 

his present challenge to his extradition is pending, since his alleged illegal 

extradition rendered his entire Baldwin County criminal proceeding “illegal.” As 

the foregoing analysis indicates, this argument is meritless. Accordingly, Lewis’s 

“Motion for Injunctive Relief and the Imposition of Sanctions” (Doc. 31) is due to be 

DENIED. 

C. Certificate of Appealability

“Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an 

appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from the final order in a habeas 

corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued 

by a State court.” 28 U.S.C.A. § 2253(c)(1)(A); Sawyer v. Holder, 326 F.3d 1363, 

1364 n.3 (11th Cir. 2003) (“Based on the statutory language of 28 U.S.C. § 

2253(c)(1), state prisoners proceeding under § 2241 must obtain a COA to appeal.”) 

“A certificate of appealability may issue ‘only if the applicant has made a 

 

between habeas relief and relief under § 1983, as he has filed four separate § 1983 actions 

with this Court (S.D. Ala. Case Nos. 1:15-cv-303-WS-N, 1:15-cv-00352-KD-M, 1:15-cv00389-KD-N, 1:15-cv-418-CG-C) since bringing the instant habeas action.

Case 1:15-cv-00273-CB-N Document 33 Filed 05/31/16 Page 10 of 15
11

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.’ ” Spencer v. United 

States, 773 F.3d 1132, 1137 (11th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 

2253(c)(2)). However, “a COA does not require a showing that the appeal will 

succeed.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 337 (2003).

Where the district court “has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, 

the showing required to satisfy § 2253(c) is straightforward: The petitioner must 

demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the 

constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000). See also Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 336 (“Under the controlling standard, a 

petitioner must show that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that 

matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or 

that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed 

further.” (citations omitted and punctuation modified)).). Where habeas relief is 

denied on procedural grounds without reaching the merits of the underlying 

constitutional claim(s), “a COA should issue [only] when the prisoner shows . . . that 

jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of 

the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable 

whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack, 529 U.S. at 

484. “A prisoner seeking a COA must prove something more than the absence of 

frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on his or her part.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. 

at 338 (quotations omitted). 

Upon consideration, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that a Certificate of 

Case 1:15-cv-00273-CB-N Document 33 Filed 05/31/16 Page 11 of 15
12

Appealability in this action be DENIED. The undersigned finds that reasonable 

jurists could not debate whether Lewis’s petition should be resolved in a different 

manner or that any of the issues presented is adequate to deserve encouragement to 

proceed further. Accordingly, Lewis is not entitled to a Certificate of Appealability 

on any of his claims.

Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States 

District Court provides: “Before entering the final order, the court may direct the 

parties to submit arguments on whether a certificate should issue.” If there is an 

objection to this recommendation by the Petitioner, he may bring this argument to 

the attention of the district judge in the objections to this report and 

recommendation that he is entitled to submit. See, e.g., Brightwell v. Patterson, No. 

CA 11-0165-WS-C, 2011 WL 1930676, at *6 (S.D. Ala. Apr. 11, 2011), report & 

recommendation adopted, 2011 WL 1930662 (S.D. Ala. May 19, 2011), certificate of 

appealability denied (11th Cir. Oct. 11, 2011 (Hull, J.)); Griffin v. DeRosa, No. 

3:10cv342/RV/MD, 2010 WL 3943702, at *4 (N.D. Fla. Sep. 20, 2010) (providing for 

same procedure), report & recommendation adopted sub nom. Griffin v. 

Butterworth, 2010 W: 3943699 (N.D. Oct. 5, 2010).8

D. Appeal In Forma Pauperis

“An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in 

writing that it is not taken in good faith.” 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(a)(3). This is so even 

 8 Should the Court adopt this recommendation and deny a certificate of appealability, the 

petitioner “may not appeal the denial but may seek a certificate from the court of appeals 

under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22.” Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section

2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.

Case 1:15-cv-00273-CB-N Document 33 Filed 05/31/16 Page 12 of 15
13

where, as here, a party was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in the district 

court. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3)(A). A district court’s finding “that an appeal would 

not be in good faith because no certificate of appealability had been issued . . . is not 

enough to explain why the appeal on the merits would not be in good faith, because 

the standard governing the issuance of a certificate of appealability is not the same 

as the standard for determining whether an appeal is in good faith. It is more 

demanding.” Walker v. O'Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 631 (7th Cir. 2000).

A party demonstrates good faith by seeking appellate review of any 

issue that is not frivolous when examined under an objective standard. 

See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445, 82 S. Ct. 917, 921, 8 

L. Ed. 2d 21 (1962). An issue is frivolous when it appears that “the 

legal theories are indisputably meritless.” Carroll v. Gross, 984 F.2d 

392, 393 (11th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). In other words, an IFP 

action is frivolous, and thus not brought in good faith, if it is *860 

“without arguable merit either in law or fact.” Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 

1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2001). More specifically, “arguable means 

capable of being convincingly argued.” Sun v. Forrester, 939 F.2d 924, 

925 (11th Cir. 1991) (internal quotations and citations omitted). 

Nevertheless, where a “claim is arguable, but ultimately will be 

unsuccessful,” it should be allowed to proceed. Cofield v. Ala. Pub. 

Serv. Comm'n, 936 F.2d 512, 515 (11th Cir. 1991).

Ghee v. Retailers Nat. Bank, 271 F. App’x 858, 859-60 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) 

(unpublished).

Considering the foregoing analysis, the undersigned RECOMMENDS the 

Court certify that any appeal by Lewis in this action would be without merit and 

therefore not taken in good faith and, accordingly, find that Lewis is not entitled to 

appeal in forma pauperis.

Case 1:15-cv-00273-CB-N Document 33 Filed 05/31/16 Page 13 of 15
14

IV. Conclusion and Recommendations

In accordance with the foregoing analysis, it is RECOMMENDED as follows:

1. That Lewis’s § 2241 habeas petition (Doc. 1), his two motions for discovery 

(Docs. 19, 20), his motion for a trial by jury (Doc. 21), his motion to stay his 

state court criminal proceedings during the pendency of his present challenge 

to his extradition (Doc. 23), and his “Motion for Injunctive Relief and the 

Imposition of Sanctions” (Doc. 31) be DENIED;

2. That this action be DISMISSED with prejudice and that judgment be 

entered in favor of the Respondent accordingly; and 

3. That the Court find Lewis not entitled to either a certificate of appealability 

or to appeal in forma pauperis.9

V. Notice of Right to File Objections

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the 

manner provided by law. Any party who objects to this recommendation or 

anything in it must, within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this 

document, file specific written objections with the Clerk of this Court. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P 72(b); S.D. Ala. GenLR 72(c). The parties should note 

that under Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, “[a] party failing to object to a magistrate 

 9 Lewis also claims to have not received copies of the Respondent’s exhibits attached to its 

answer and moves the Court to “check into this.” (Doc. 22 at 2). To the extent Lewis is 

requesting that the Court send him copies of these exhibits, that request (Doc. 22) is 

GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Lewis a copy of the Respondent’s 

exhibits (Docs. 13-1 through 13-7) along with the copy of this recommendation that will be 

sent to him. However, the undersigned finds no need to delay the issuance of this 

recommendation for Lewis to consider these exhibits, as it is clear Lewis is due no relief 

under § 2241 even without reference to them. To the extent Lewis disagrees, he may so 

state in his objections to this recommendation.

Case 1:15-cv-00273-CB-N Document 33 Filed 05/31/16 Page 14 of 15
15

judge’s findings or recommendations contained in a report and recommendation in 

accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge 

on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal 

conclusions if the party was informed of the time period for objecting and the 

consequences on appeal for failing to object. In the absence of a proper objection, 

however, the court may review on appeal for plain error if necessary in the interests 

of justice.” 11th Cir. R. 3-1. In order to be specific, an objection must identify the 

specific finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for 

the objection, and specify the place in the Magistrate Judge’s report and 

recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An objection that 

merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the Magistrate 

Judge is not specific.

DONE this the 31st day of May 2016.

/s/ Katherine P. Nelson

KATHERINE P. NELSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00273-CB-N Document 33 Filed 05/31/16 Page 15 of 15