Curry v. Adam

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE EASTERN DIVISION ______________________________________________________________________________ STACY CURRY, Petitioner, v. No. 1:25-cv-01186-JDB-jay DEMETRIC GODFREY, Warden, Respondent. ______________________________________________________________________________ ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S PRO SE MOTION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY ______________________________________________________________________________ On July 31, 2025, the Petitioner, Stacy Curry, who is currently confined at the Hardeman County Correctional Facility in Whiteville, Tennessee, under Tennessee Department of Correction prisoner number 322211, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in state custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (the “Petition”). (Docket Entry (“D.E.”) 2.) On December 8, 2025, the Respondent, Demetric Godfrey, filed a motion to dismiss the Petition (D.E. 14), to which Curry did not respond. On January 26, 2026, the Court granted the motion, dismissed the Petition as time-barred, and denied a certificate of appealability (“COA”). (D.E. 15.) The Court entered judgment the same day. (D.E. 16.) Pending on the Court’s docket is Petitioner’s May 4, 2026, pro se motion for a COA. (D.E. 17.) A COA may issue only if the petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, and the COA must indicate the specific issue or issues that satisfy the required showing. 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) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)); Henley v. Bell, 308 F. App’x 989, 990 (6th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (same). A COA does not require a showing that the appeal will succeed. Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 337; Caldwell v. Lewis, 414 F. App’x 809, 814-15 (6th Cir. 2011) (same). Courts should not issue a COA as a matter of course. Bradley v. Birkett, 156 F. App’x 771, 773 (6th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (quoting Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 337). In its January 2026 order, the Court denied a COA because jurists of reason would not debate that the Petition was time-barred. In the instant motion, Curry states in conclusory fashion that a COA should issue because he “has viable issues for which relief could be granted.” (D.E. 17 at PageID 318.) However, he fails to articulate what those reasons might be. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of May 2026. s/ J. DANIEL BREEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE