Mullins v. Taylor, No. 3:2009cv00307 - Document 5 (W.D. Ky. 2009)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Judge John G. Heyburn, II on 6/16/2009; Because it appears to this Court that Petitioner has abandoned any interest in prosecution of this case, the Court will dismiss the case by separate order.cc:Petitioner, pro se, Respondent (SC)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT LOUISVILLE WILLIAM DAVID MULLINS PETITIONER v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:09-CV-P307-H WARDEN CLARK TAYLOR RESPONDENT MEMORANDUM OPINION Petitioner initiated this civil action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Upon filing the instant action, he assumed the responsibility of keeping this Court advised of his current address and to actively litigate his claims. See LR 5.2(d) ( All pro se litigants must provide written notice of a change of address to the clerk and to the opposing party or the opposing party s counsel. Failure to notify the Clerk of an address change may result in the dismissal of the litigant s case or other appropriate sanctions. ). The Clerk of Court sent a mailing to Petitioner on May 13, 2009. That mailing was returned by the United States Postal Service marked Return to Sender; Attempted not Known; Unable to Forward. Petitioner has not advised the Court of a change of address, and neither notices from this Court nor filings by Respondent in this action can be served on Petitioner. In such situations, courts have an inherent power acting on their own initiative, to clear their calendars of cases that have remained dormant because of the inaction or dilatoriness of the parties seeking relief. Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962). Because it appears to this Court that Petitioner has abandoned any interest in prosecution of this case, the Court will dismiss the case by separate order. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY An individual who unsuccessfully petitions for writ of habeas corpus in a federal district court and subsequently seeks appellate review must secure a certificate of appealability (COA) from either a circuit justice or judge before the appellate court may review the appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). A COA may not issue unless the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483 (2000). When a district court denies such a motion on procedural grounds without addressing the merits of the petition, a COA should issue if the petitioner shows 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. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. When a plain procedural bar is present and a court is correct to invoke it to dispose of the matter, a reasonable jurist could not conclude either that the court erred in dismissing the petition or that the petitioner should be allowed to proceed further. Id. In such a case, no appeal is warranted. Id. The Court is satisfied that no jurist of reason could find its procedural ruling to be debatable. Thus, no certificate of appealability is warranted in this case. Date: cc: Petitioner, pro se Respondent 4412.009 2 June 16, 2009

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.