United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Eastern Division
ORDER CONSTRUING PLEADING AS A § 2254 PETITION,
DISMISSING PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE, DENYING CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY, AND DENYING LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA
BREEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
October 15, 2019, Petitioner, Gregory Goff, filed a pro
se habeas corpus petition (the “Petition”),
on a pleading form used for cases brought pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241. (Docket Entry (“D.E.”) 1.)
The Petition is before the Court for preliminary review. For
the following reasons, the Petition is DISMISSED.
inmate challenges a conviction from the Madison County
Circuit Court dated October 10, 2019,  on grounds
relating to the sufficiency of the evidence. (Id. at
PageID 1, 6-7.) The Petition is therefore in the nature of a
pleading brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and the
Court liberally construes it as such. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(a) (“[A] district court shall entertain an
application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person
in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court
only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the
Constitution or laws or treaties of the United
States.”) (emphasis added).
these circumstances, the Court would normally require the
inmate to refile the Petition on the Court's § 2254
form. However, it is apparent that Goff has not exhausted his
state court remedies, as required by statute. See 28
U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1) (“An application for a writ of
habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to
the judgment of a State court shall not be granted unless it
appears that . . . the applicant has exhausted the remedies
available in the courts of the State.”). Specifically,
he admits that his “case [is] still pending”
before the trial court. (D.E. 1 at PageID 2.) Because the
claims presented in the Petition have not been exhausted,
dismissal of the Petition is warranted. See Rose v.
Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518-22 (1982).
Petition is therefore DISMISSED without prejudice.
§ 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)-(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)). “If the petition was denied on
procedural grounds, the petitioner must show, ‘at
least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether
the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a
constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it
debatable whether the district court was correct in its
procedural ruling.'” Dufresne v. Palmer,
876 F.3d 248, 252-53 (6th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (quoting
Slack, 529 U.S. at 484).
case, reasonable jurists would not debate the correctness of
the Court's decision to dismiss the Petition. Because any
appeal by Petitioner does not deserve attention, the Court
DENIES a certificate of appealability.
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). However, 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.
case, for the same reason 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.
 Petitioner does not explain the nature
of the ...