Sanders v. Ford

Filing 32

ORDER DISMISSING CASE: For the reasons 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. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts on 9/6/2017. (xc:Pro se party by regular 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

TERRY DONELLE SANDERS #205630,
Petitioner,
v.
TAMMY FORD,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:16-cv-02763
Judge Roberts

ORDER
Petitioner Terry Donelle Sanders, a state prisoner serving an effective sentence of thirty
years for two counts of sale of less than .5 grams of cocaine, 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. 28, 29.) For the reasons 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 a 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 a
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,” but courts should not issue a COA as a matter of

course. Id. at 337.
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.

/s/ Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Sitting by Special Designation
Dated: September 6, 2017

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this
document was served on the attorneys of record
and Terry Donnell Sanders by electronic means
or U.S. Mail on September 6, 2017.
s/Linda Vertriest
Deputy Clerk

2