Cranmer v. Johnson et al

Filing 23

ORDER DISMISSING CASE: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, 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. Signed by Chief Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 1/18/2017. (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
NASHVILLE DIVISION

JAMES R. CRANMER #00503201,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,
v.
DEBRA JOHNSON,
Respondent.

No. 3:16-cv-00725
Chief Judge Sharp

ORDER
Petitioner James R. Cranmer, a state prisoner serving an effective sentence of fifteen
years for one count of second degree murder, one count of attempted second degree murder
and two counts of reckless aggravated assault, has filed a pro se petition under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 for the writ of habeas corpus. (ECF No. 1.) Respondent has filed an answer, along with
a copy of portions of the state court record. (ECF Nos. 13, 15, 20.)
For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, 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.

It is so ORDERED.

Kevin H. Sharp, Chief Judge
United States District Court

2