govinfo:USCOURTS-tnwd-1_25-cv-01186-1

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 PageID
<pageID>
2 
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 PageID
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight