Oliver v. Rankins

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
RALPH OLIVER, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-24-1310-SLP
)
WILLIAM CHRISTOPHER RANKINS, )
)
Respondent. )
O R D E R
Petitioner, a state prisoner appearing pro se, has filed Motions for Leave to Proceed
In Forma Pauperis and Supporting Affidavit [Doc. Nos. 35 and 37] in conjunction with his
Notice of Intent to Appeal [Doc. No. 36] the denial of his Petition for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.1 Petitioner has also filed an Application for Certificate
for Appealability from the District Court [Doc. No. 40]. To proceed in forma pauperis on
appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, Petitioner must show both that he is financially unable to
pay the appellate filing fee and that his appeal is taken in good faith. See McIntosh v. U.S.
Parole Comm’n, 115 F.3d 809, 812 (10th Cir. 1997); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) & (3); see
also Harris v. Raemisch, 567 F. App’x 603, 606 (10th Cir. 2014). A good faith appeal
requires the presentation of a “reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts in
support of the issues raised on appeal.” Caravalho v. Pugh, 177 F.3d 1177, 1179 (10th
Cir. 1999); see also Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962).
1 Petitioner’s Motions appear to be duplicative.
Case 5:24-cv-01310-SLP Document 41 Filed 02/09/26 Page 1 of 2

2
Upon review of Petitioner’s Motions and the case record, the Court finds Petitioner
has failed to make the necessary showing. Petitioner has demonstrated that he lacks the
financial resources to pay the appellate filing fee. But the Court has reviewed the issues
raised in Petitioner’s Application [Doc. No. 40] and finds that Petitioner fails to meet the
second requirement. As the Court previously found, the Petition lacks merit and is also
untimely filed. See Order [Doc. No. 33]. Accordingly, Petitioner is not entitled to proceed
without payment of the filing fee.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motions for Leave to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis and Supporting Affidavit [Doc. Nos. 35 and 37] and Application for
Certificate for Appealability from the District Court [Doc. No. 40] are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of February, 2026.
Case 5:24-cv-01310-SLP Document 41 Filed 02/09/26 Page 2 of 2