Thompson v. Boyd
1:21-cv-01103-STA-jay
| W.D. Tenn. | Oct 14, 2021Background
- Petitioner Marcus Frazier Thompson filed a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition on July 14, 2021.
- By order dated July 19, 2021, the Court directed Thompson to refile his claims on the district’s official § 2254 form within 28 days and warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.
- Thompson did not refile on the required form and did not seek an extension of time; the deadline passed without action.
- The Court dismissed the petition without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
- The Court denied a certificate of appealability, concluding reasonable jurists would not debate the dismissal.
- The Court certified under Fed. R. App. P. 24(a) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis; it noted the $505 appellate filing fee or motion to proceed IFP must be filed in the Sixth Circuit if Thompson appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dismissal for failure to prosecute (failure to refile on official form) | Thompson did not refile or seek more time (no corrective action taken) | Court: noncompliance after clear order and warning justified dismissal | Petition dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute |
| Certificate of Appealability (COA) | Thompson sought relief via § 2254 (merits not reached) | Court: petitioner did not make a substantial showing of denial of a constitutional right; reasonable jurists would not debate dismissal | COA denied |
| Leave to appeal in forma pauperis / good-faith certification | Thompson could seek pauper status on appeal | Court: because COA denied and appeal lacks arguable merit, appeal would not be taken in good faith | Court certified appeal not taken in good faith and denied leave to appeal IFP (appellate IFP motion must be filed in Sixth Circuit if appealed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (standard for a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right for COA)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (COA standard and review when petition is denied on procedural grounds)
- Dufresne v. Palmer, 876 F.3d 248 (6th Cir. 2017) (district-court COA procedural-rule guidance for habeas appeals)