Singo v. Easterling

Filing 58

ORDER: Petitioner's motion to expand the record pertains to documents that appear to have been part of the state court record and are properly subject to consideration under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Accordingly, the motion to expand the reco rd (ECF No. 52 ) is GRANTED. Nevertheless, as set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, Petitioner is not entitled to relief under § 2254 on any of his claims. Accordingly, the Amended Petition is hereby DENIED and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 5/5/2016. (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
NASHVILLE DIVISION

PERRY SINGO,
Petitioner,
v.
JOE EASTERLING, WARDEN
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:08-cv-00514
Chief Judge Sharp

ORDER
Petitioner Perry Singo filed this action seeking the writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254. The operative petition is the Amended Petition filed by his appointed counsel. (ECF No.
17.) Respondent has filed an answer, along with a copy of portions of the state court record
(ECF Nos. 48, 24), and Petitioner has filed a reply. (ECF No. 53.) In addition, Petitioner has
filed a motion to expand the record, which Respondent opposes. (ECF Nos. 52, 55).
Petitioner’s motion to expand the record pertains to documents that appear to have been
part of the state court record and are properly subject to consideration under 28 U.S.C. §
2254(d). Accordingly, the motion to expand the record (ECF No. 52) is GRANTED.
Nevertheless, as set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, Petitioner is not
entitled to relief under § 2254 on any of his claims. Accordingly, the Amended 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. The Petitioner may still seek
a COA directly from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Rule 11(a), Rules Gov’g § 2254 Cases.

It is so ORDERED.

Kevin H. Sharp, Chief Judge
United States District Court

2