DAY
v.
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (POLK COUNTY)
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.
This is a post-conviction habeas corpus proceeding in which the district court denied the petitioner's motion for a certificate of appealability and motion to expand the record, finding that the underlying order was neither final nor appealable.
The court denied the motions for certificate of appealability and reconsideration, holding that the order denying the motion to expand the record is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. The court denied the motion for need of confirmation, refusing to provide legal advice. The court granted the motion for extension of time, allowing Day until September 20, 2024 to file any motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
[1] A certificate of appealability is not warranted when the order denying a motion to expand the record is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collatera…
[2] A court will not provide legal advice to a pro se litigant regarding how to proceed with motions or appeals.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a certificate of appealability is not warranted because the order denying the motion to expand the record is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order”
Establishes the legal standard for when a certificate of appealability may be granted and why it was denied in this case
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJoshua Lee Day, proceeding pro se, filed multiple motions in his federal habeas corpus case against the Secretary of the Department of Corrections. Th…
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 Motion To Proceed In Forma Pauperis cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court are Mr. Day's Motion for Certificate of Appealability and/or Reconsideration (Doc. 22), Motion for Need of Confirmation (Doc. 24), construed motion for a certificate of appealability (Doc. 26), and Motion for Extension of Time to File a Leave to Appeal [sic] Forma Paupersis [sic] (Doc. 29). Upon consideration, it is ORDERED that:
1. The Motion for Certificate of Appealability and/or Reconsideration (Doc. 22) and the construed motion for a certificate of appealability (Doc. 26) are DENIED. The Court sees no basis to reconsider its order denying Mr. Day's motion to expand the record (See Doc. 21). And a certificate of appealability is not warranted because the order denying the motion to expand the record is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Hallcy v. Lumpkin, 2023 WL 4351242, at *1 (5th Cir. July 5, 2023).
2. The Motion for Need of Confirmation (Doc. 24) is DENIED. The Court will not give Mr. Day legal advice as to how he should proceed with his motions or appeals.
1
3. The Motion for Extension of Time to File a Leave to Appeal [sic] Forma Paupersis [sic] (Doc. 29) is GRANTED. Mr. Day must file any motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis by September 20, 2024.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on August 23, 2024.
WILLIAM F. JUNG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: Joshua Lee Day, pro se Counsel of Record
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Day v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (Polk County), 2023 WL 4351242 (M.D. Fla. 2024)…on to expand the record (See Doc. 21). And a certificate of appealability is not warranted because the order denying the motion to expand the record is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Hallcy v. Lumpkin, 2023 WL 4351242, at *1 (5th Cir. July 5, 2023). 2. The Motion for Need of Confirmation (Doc. 24) is DENIED. The Court will not give Mr. Day legal advice as to how he should proceed with his motions or appeals. 3. The Motion for Extension of Time to File a Leave t…
Authorities Cited
- Day v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (Polk County), 2023 WL 4351242 (M.D. Fla. 2024)