From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Johnson v. Ford

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE EASTERN DIVISION
Jun 26, 2018
No. 1:17-cv-1162-STA-egb (W.D. Tenn. Jun. 26, 2018)

Opinion

No. 1:17-cv-1162-STA-egb

06-26-2018

CHARLES JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. TAMMY FORD, Respondent.


ORDER DISMISSING PETITION, DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND DENYING LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Petitioner, Charles Johnson, filed a pro se habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("Petition"). (ECF No. 1.) For the following reason, the Petition is DISMISSED.

A litigant's most basic responsibility is to keep the Court informed of his whereabouts. The Tennessee felony offender website shows a date of December 15, 2017, as Johnson's "Sentence End" date, but Petitioner's address of record with the Court is Whiteville Correctional Facility. Petitioner has had ample time to apprise the Clerk of a change of address.

The Petition is therefore DISMISSED for want of prosecution.

APPEAL ISSUES

A § 2254 petitioner may not proceed on appeal unless a district or circuit judge issues a certificate of appealability ("COA"). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1). A COA may issue only if the petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)-(3). A "substantial showing" is made when the petitioner demonstrates 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.'" Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). "If the petition was denied on procedural grounds, the petitioner must show, 'at least, 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.'" Dufresne v. Palmer, 876 F.3d 248, 252-53 (6th Cir. 2017) (quoting Slack, 529 U.S. at 484).

In this case, reasonable jurists would not debate the correctness of the Court's decision to dismiss the Petition. Because any appeal by Petitioner does not deserve attention, the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a), a party seeking pauper status on appeal must first file a motion in the district court, along with a supporting affidavit. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a). However, Rule 24(a) also provides that if the district court certifies that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, the prisoner must file his motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the appellate court. Id.

In this case, for the same reason it denies a COA, the Court CERTIFIES, pursuant to Rule 24(a), that any appeal in this matter would not be taken in good faith. Leave to appeal in forma pauperis is therefore DENIED.

If Petitioner files a notice of appeal, he must also pay the full $505.00 appellate filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and supporting affidavit in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals within thirty days. --------

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ S. Thomas Anderson

S. THOMAS ANDERSON

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Date: June 26, 2018


Summaries of

Johnson v. Ford

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE EASTERN DIVISION
Jun 26, 2018
No. 1:17-cv-1162-STA-egb (W.D. Tenn. Jun. 26, 2018)
Case details for

Johnson v. Ford

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. TAMMY FORD, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE EASTERN DIVISION

Date published: Jun 26, 2018

Citations

No. 1:17-cv-1162-STA-egb (W.D. Tenn. Jun. 26, 2018)