WINSLOW
v.
RICK WELLS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A federal habeas corpus application is premature and subject to dismissal if the applicant's conviction is not yet final because the time to appeal has not expired.
The applicant pleaded guilty to five counts of failing to register an internet name and was sentenced. He intended to appeal but filed a habeas corpus…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Leave To Appeal In Forma Pauperis cases and more on FLexlaw
Winslow applies under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for the writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1), but he neither paid the $5.00 filing fee nor requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Local Rules 6.03 and 6.04 direct that the action is subject to dismissal if the fee is not paid or if a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is not filed. However, Winslow cannot proceed with this action under Section 2254.
Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, requires both a preliminary review of the application for the writ of habeas corpus and a summary dismissal "[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the [application] and any exhibits annexed to it that the [applicant] is not entitled to relief in the district court . . . ."
Winslow represents both that on June 5, 2025, he pleaded guilty to five counts of failing to register an internet name, for which was sentenced to twelve months, and that
he intends to appeal. Consequently, the conviction is not yet final and, accordingly the present application is premature.*
The application for the writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED AS PREMATURE. The clerk must CLOSE this case.
DENIAL OF BOTHA CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AND LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Winslow is not entitled to a certificate of appealability (“COA”). A prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no entitlement to appeal a district court's denial of his application. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). Rather, a district court must first issue a COA. Section 2253(c)(2) permits issuing a COA “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." To merit a COA, Winslow must show that reasonable jurists would find debatable both the merits of the underlying claims and the procedural issues he seeks to raise. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478 (2000); Eagle v. Linahan, 279 F. 3d 926, 935 (11th Cir 2001).
Because the application is clearly premature, Winslow is entitled to neither a COA nor leave to appeal in forma pauperis.
[*2]A certificate of appealability is DENIED. Leave to appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED. Winslow must obtain permission from the circuit court to appeal in forma pauperis.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on June 27, 2025.
STEVEN D. MERRYDAY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
[*3][fn 1]: The district court judicially notices the online docket for the Circuit Court for Manatee County, Florida, which docket is accessible by searching Winslow's name at https://records.manateeclerk.com/CourtRecords/Search/Person. The docket confirms that the conviction is not final because he still has time to appeal.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Slack v. McDANIEL, 529 U.S. 473 (U.S. 2000)
- Eagle v. Linahan, 279 F.3d 926 (11th Cir. 2001)