Thompson v. Ford

Filing 4

ORDER DISMISSING CASE: Because it appears from the petitioner's application that he lacks sufficient funds to pay the filing fee, the application (ECF No. 2 ) is GRANTED. However, for the reasons explained in the accompanying Memorandum Opi nion, the petition filed in this case is DENIED and this matter is DISMISSED for failure to exhaust state-court remedies. This dismissal is WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the petitioner's ability to refile a habeas petition that satisfies the requireme nts of Rule 4 as well as 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and other applicable law after he has exhausted his state-court remedies. Signed by District Judge Todd J. Campbell on 2/18/2016. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail & copy of petition and order to Attorney General by 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
NASHVILLE DIVISION
TIMOTHY L. THOMPSON (#143256),

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,
v.
TAMMY FORD, WARDEN,
Respondent.

Case No. 3:16-cv-0195
Judge Campbell

ORDER
Timothy L. Thompson, a prisoner in state custody, filed a petition for the writ of habeas corpus under
28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his 2010 conviction and sentence in the Davidson County Criminal Court. The
petition is before the Court for an initial review. Rule 4, R. Gov’g § 2254 Cases. Also pending is the
petitioner’s Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2). Because it appears from the petitioner’s
application that he lacks sufficient funds to pay the filing fee, the application (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED.
However, for the reasons explained in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, the petition filed
in this case is DENIED and this matter is DISMISSED for failure to exhaust state-court remedies. This
dismissal is WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the petitioner’s ability to refile a habeas petition that satisfies the
requirements of Rule 4 as well as 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and other applicable law after he has exhausted his
state-court remedies.
Rule 11 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires that a district court issue or deny a Certificate
of Appealability (“COA”) when it enters a final order. Because the petitioner’s claims in his present petition
do not merit further review, the Court DENIES a COA.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to serve a copy of the petition and this Order via certified mail on the
respondent and the Attorney General of Tennessee.
It is so ORDERED.
This is the final judgment for purposes of Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

TODD CAMPBELL
United States District Judge