Medina v. Genovese

Filing 32

ORDER: Petitioner Michael Medina filed this action seeking the writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1 .) Respondent has filed an answer, along with a copy of portions of the state court record. (ECF Nos. 15 , 19 , 20 .) In addition, Petitioner has filed a motion to expand the record, which Respondent opposes. (ECF Nos. 23 , 28 .) Petitioner's motion to expand the record pertains to documents that are either barred from consideration under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) or immaterial to any claims subject to habeas review. Accordingly, the motion to expand the record (ECF No. 23 ) is DENIED. As set forth in the accompanying Memorandum, Petitioner is not entitled to relief under § 2254 on any of his c laims. Accordingly, the petition is hereby DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 8/25/2016. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(hb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NORTHEASTERN DIVISION

MICHAEL G. MEDINA #332874,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN GENOVESE,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:16-cv-00019
Chief Judge Sharp

ORDER
Petitioner Michael Medina filed this action seeking the writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1.) Respondent has filed an answer, along with a copy of portions of
the state court record. (ECF Nos. 15, 19, 20.) In addition, Petitioner has filed a motion to
expand the record, which Respondent opposes. (ECF Nos. 23, 28.)
Petitioner’s motion to expand the record pertains to documents that are either barred
from consideration under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) or immaterial to any claims subject to habeas
review. Accordingly, the motion to expand the record (ECF No. 23) is DENIED.
As set forth in the accompanying Memorandum, Petitioner is not entitled to relief under §
2254 on any of his claims. Accordingly, the petition is hereby DENIED, and this action is
DISMISSED with prejudice.
The Court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability (“COA”) when it enters a final
order adverse to a § 2254 petitioner. Rule 11, Rules Gov’g § 2254 Cases. A petitioner may not
take an appeal unless a district or circuit judge issues a 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). 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 (2003) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). “[A] COA
does not require a showing that the appeal will succeed,” Miller–El, 537 U.S. at 337, but courts
should not issue a COA as a matter of course. Id.
Because reasonable jurists could not debate whether Petitioner is entitled to relief on
any of his claims, the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability. Petitioner may still seek a
COA directly from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Rule 11(a), Rules Gov’g § 2254 Cases.
The Court’s Order (ECF No. 29) requiring further action by Respondent is VACATED.

It is so ORDERED.

Kevin H. Sharp, Chief Judge
United States District Court

2