Bond v. Howerton

Filing 22

ORDER: As explained in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, the Court finds that Bond is not entitled to relief on the basis of the grounds articulated in his petition. Accordingly, his habeas petition (ECF No. 1) is hereby DENIED and this matter is DISMISSED. Signed by District Judge Todd J. Campbell on 1/30/14. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(tmw)

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

JOSHUA BOND,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,
v.
DAVID SEXTON, Warden
Respondent.

No. 3:13-cv-00416
Judge Campbell

ORDER
Petitioner Joshua Bond, a prisoner in state custody who is incarcerated at the Morgan County
Correctional Complex in Wartburg, Tennessee, has filed a pro se petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for the
writ of habeas corpus, challenging a conviction and sentence issued by the Davidson County Criminal Court
in 2008.
As explained in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, the Court finds that Bond is not entitled
to relief on the basis of the grounds articulated in his petition. Accordingly, his habeas petition (ECF No. 1)
is hereby DENIED and this matter is DISMISSED.
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. The 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), and the COA must “indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the [required] showing . . .
.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(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 (2003) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000)). “[A] COA does not require a showing that the appeal will succeed.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 337.
Courts should not issue a COA as a matter of course. Id.
In this case, the petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

Because an appeal by the petitioner on any of the issues raised in this petition would not merit further
attention, the Court DENIES a COA. The petitioner may, however, seek a COA directly from the Sixth Circuit
Court of Appeals. Rule 11(a), Rules Gov’g § 2254 Cases.
It is so ORDERED.
This is a final order for purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.

Todd Campbell
United States District Judge

-2-