Ellis v. State of Tennessee
ORDER DISMISSING § 2254 PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE, DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND DENYING LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS. Signed by Chief Judge S. Thomas Anderson on 8/24/17. (Anderson, S. Thomas)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
JOSHUA LYNN ELLIS,
STATE OF TENNESSEE,
Case No. 1:17-cv-01107-STA-egb
ORDER DISMISSING § 2254 PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE,
DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY,
DENYING LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS
On June 6, 2017, Petitioner Joshua Lynn Ellis filed a pro se pleading on a form used by the
Tennessee state courts for post-conviction relief (“Petition”). (ECF No. 1) The pleading was
docketed as a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court ordered Petitioner to file an amended
petition on the Court’s official form and warned that failure to do so would result in dismissal of
the Petition. (ECF No. 7)
Petitioner has not filed an amended petition, and the time for doing so has passed.
Accordingly, the Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice for Ellis’s failure to comply with the
Court’s order and for want of prosecution. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
The Clerk is DIRECTED to close the case.
A section 2254 petitioner may not proceed on appeal unless a district or circuit judge issues
a certificate of appealability (“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), (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. Daniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
In this case, reasonable jurists would not debate the correctness of the Court’s decision to
dismiss the Petition. Because any appeal by Ellis does not deserve attention, the Court DENIES a
certificate of appealability.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a), a party seeking pauper status on
appeal must first file a motion in the district court, along with a supporting affidavit. Fed. R. App.
P. 24(a). But Rule 24(a) also provides that if the district court certifies that an appeal would not
be taken in good faith, the prisoner must file his motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the
appellate court. Id.
In this case, for the same reasons it denies a COA, the Court CERTIFIES, pursuant to
Rule 24(a), that any appeal in this matter would not be taken in good faith. Leave to appeal in
forma pauperis is therefore DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ S. Thomas Anderson
S. THOMAS ANDERSON
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Date: August 24, 2017
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?