Qualls v. Crow et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
ERIC A. QUALLS,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case Number 2:23-cv-3889
Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers
FRED W. CROW, III, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
The matter before the Court is Plaintiff Eric A. Qualls’s Motion for Reconsideration of
11/25/25 [sic] Order. (ECF No. 17.)
In October 2024, this Court issued an Order dismissing all of Mr. Qualls’s claims against
Defendants after a de novo review of the record. (ECF No. 10, PageID 89.) Additionally, under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the Court certified that an appeal of its Order would not be taken in good faith
and denied Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. (Id.)
Nonetheless, Mr. Qualls subsequently filed a Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma
pauperis (ECF No. 13) and a Motion for Certificate of Appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (ECF
No. 14). On November 25, 2024, this Court denied the Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma
pauperis because it had previously certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. (ECF
No. 16, PageID 119.) The Court also denied the Motion for Certificate of Appealability because a
Certificate of Appealability applies to habeas corpus proceedings, and Mr. Qualls’s action was
brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, not habeas corpus. (Id.)
Mr. Qualls also filed the same motions, seeking in forma pauperis status and a Certificate
of Appealability, with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. (ECF No. 18, PageID 129.) In May
Case: 2:23-cv-03889-EAS-EPD Doc #: 19 Filed: 01/15/26 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
2025, the Sixth Circuit issued an Order denying the motions. (Id. PageID 132.) First, the Sixth
Circuit found that Mr. Qualls “lacks an arguable basis for challenging the district court’s dismissal
of his complaint” and denied his request to appeal in forma pauperis. (Id. PageID 130–32.) The
Sixth Circuit’s Order stated, “Unless Qualls pays the $605 filing fee to the district court within 30
days of the entry of this order, this appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution.” (Id. PageID
132.) Second, the Sixth Circuit denied Mr. Qualls’s request for a Certificate of Appealability as
unnecessary because “a certificate of appealability is not required for an appeal from the dismissal
of a civil complaint.” (Id.)
The matter before the Court now is Mr. Qualls’s Motion for Reconsideration of this Court’s
November 2024 Order that denied Mr. Qualls’s motions to appeal in forma pauperis and for a
Certificate of Appealability (ECF No. 16). (ECF No. 17) Mr. Qualls’s Motion for Reconsideration
only addresses the denial of a Certificate of Appealability. (Id. PageID 122–23.)
Mr. Qualls’s Motion is moot. The Sixth Circuit has issued an Order regarding Mr. Qualls’s
ability to appeal (ECF No. 18) and this Court reconsidering its November 2025 Order would not
change that outcome. As the Sixth Circuit stated, a Certificate of Appealability is not necessary in
this case; and Mr. Qualls was able to proceed with his appeal if he paid the appropriate filing fee.
(Id. PageID 132.) Accordingly, (ECF No. 17) Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED
as moot.
This case remains closed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
1/15/2026 	s/Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
DATE 	EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 2:23-cv-03889-EAS-EPD Doc #: 19 Filed: 01/15/26 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>