Benson

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

WESTERN DIVISION

RICKEY BENSON,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 2:24-cv-2958-MSN-tmp

ANTHONY ALEXANDER, DIRECTOR,

Respondent.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WAIVE FILING OF THE STATE COURT RECORD

(ECF NO. 32) AND RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF NO. 31);

DISMISSING THE § 2241 PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE;

DENYING ADDITIONAL PENDING MOTIONS;

DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY;

CERTIFYING THAT AN APPEAL WOULD NOT BE TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH; AND

DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL

Petitioner Rickey Benson, inmate number 204821, who is confined at the Shelby County

Division of Corrections, has filed a pro se Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241 ( “§ 2241 Petition”). (ECF No. 2.) The Court granted Petitioner leave to proceed in forma

pauperis. (ECF No. 13.) On March 21, 2025, the Court directed the Clerk to serve the § 2241

Petition and directed Respondent to file a response within twenty-eight (28) days. (ECF No. 16.)

Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss and a Motion to Waive Requirement to File State-Court

Record on June 18, 2025. (ECF Nos. 31 & 32.) Petitioner has not filed a response to the Motion

to Dismiss, and the time for him to do so has expired. (See ECF No. 31.)

Because the Court has already granted Petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis (see

ECF No. 13), Petitioner’s second motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, filed on June 6,

2025 (ECF No. 29), is DENIED as moot.

FEDERAL HABEAS CLAIM

A. § 2241 Petition

In his § 2241 Petition, Petitioner avers that Respondent “refuse[s] to give me my jail credits

from 6/27/23 to 4/18/24, and from 5/3/24 to 11/12/24 (more than 16 months) that I served on my

3[]yrs. of docket #C23062-64; in which, I also earned my jail credits from 5/3/24 to 11/12/24

(more than 6 months) that I served on my 2[]yrs. of docket #C2403632.” (ECF No. 2 at PageID

10.) Petitioner asks the Court whether his terms are consecutive and if he “deserve[s]” jail credits.

(Id.)

Respondent seeks dismissal of the § 2241 Petition because “the claim it raises is not

cognizable and because Petitioner has not exhausted state-court remedies on this claim.” (ECF

No. 31 at PageID 76.)

B. Analysis

A federal court may not grant a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a state prisoner unless,

with certain exceptions, the prisoner has exhausted available state remedies. Cullen v. Pinholster,

563 U.S. 170, 181 (2011) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)-(c)). The exhaustion requirement applies to

prisoners who file habeas petitions challenging the execution of their sentences under § 2241.

Braden v. 30th Jud. Cir. Ct. of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 489-91 (1973); Collins v. Million, 121 F. App’x

628, 630–31 (6th Cir. 2005). To exhaust a claim, the petitioner must “fairly present” his claim in

each appropriate state court. Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29 (2004). A claim has not been

fairly presented to the state courts where it “has been presented for the first and only time in a

procedural context in which its merits will not be considered.” Castille v. Peoples, 489 U.S. 346,

350 (1989). The petitioner carries the burden of demonstrating exhaustion. Rust v. Zent, 17 F.3d

155, 160 (6th Cir. 1994).

2

A Tennessee inmate seeking to challenge the award of post-judgment sentence reduction

credits, including “good time” or behavior credits, must follow the procedures set forth in the

Uniform Administrative Procedures Act (“UAPA”). State v. Lester, No. M2016-00700-CCA-R3-

CD, 2017 WL 253165, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 17, 2017) (agreeing that “[t]he proper avenue

to address post-judgment jail credit for prisoners is through the [Tennessee Department of

Correction (“TDOC”)] administratively”). Petitioner must follow the UAPA to challenge his

sentence expiration date or release eligibility date. See Hughley v. State, 208 S.W.3d 388, 395

(Tenn. 2006) (recognizing that “the validity of any sentence reduction credits must be addressed

through the UAPA”). To properly exhaust a challenge to an inmate’s release eligibility date, the

UAPA requires that the inmate first seek a declaratory order about the sentence calculation from

the TDOC. Stewart v. Schofield, 368 S.W.3d 457, 464 (Tenn. 2012) (citing Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-

5-223(a)). If the TDOC refuses to issue a declaratory order, the inmate may seek judicial review

by seeking a declaratory judgment in the chancery court of Davidson County, Tennessee. Id.

Petitioner has not demonstrated that he has properly exhausted his state court remedies by

seeking a declaratory order from TDOC or a declaratory judgment in chancery court. Accordingly,

for the reasons discussed above, Respondent’s Motion to Waive Filing of the State Court Record

(ECF No. 32) and Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 31) are GRANTED, and Petitioner’s

§ 2241 Petition (ECF No. 2) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to exhaust

available state remedies.

3

ADDITIONAL PENDING MOTIONS

Between January 6, 2025, and February 25, 2026, after filing his § 2241 Petition, Petitioner

filed the following pleadings seeking various forms of relief (collectively, “Additional Pending

Motions”):

1. “Cross-Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus using the Original Records of the

Attached Post Hearing and Appeal of Incident ID: 24-1126-017, Pursuant to the

Fed. R. Civ. P. and 28 U.S.C. Section 2241.” (ECF No. 7);

2. “Petition for Court to Intervene into Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus for Court

to Pardon and Release Petitioner on Time Served Due to Mental and Physical

Illness (or Hernia) and Double Jeopardy, etc. Filed on Cases – C2306264 and

C2403632 in Division 4, Criminal Court on Approx. December 2, 2024, using the

Original Record of Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus for Court to

Pardon and Release Petitioner, Etc., under the Fed. R. Civ. P. and the 4th and 14th

Amendments.” (ECF No. 9);

3. “Second Petition for Court Intervention on Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus,

etc. of Div. 4, Criminal Court Case No. C23062-64 and C2403632, pursuant to the

Fed. R. Civ. P.” (ECF No. 12), which Petitioner filed a duplicate copy of on March

14, 2025 (ECF No. 15);

4. “Motion for Petitioner’s Reply to Respondent’s Answer/Response to 2241 Petition

due to 3/21/25 Order (Document: 16) (sic) with Motion for Preliminary Injunctive

Relief for Court to Order Director to Transfer Petitioner to Special Need[s] Facility

of the T.D.O.C. due to Imminent Danger of Serious Physical Harm by

Director/Subordinates under the F.R.C.P./F.R.C.P. 65.” (ECF No. 21);

5. “Motion to Allege Second Further Violations and Imminent Danger to Support

Motion for Injunction (sic) Relief under F.R.C.P. 65.” (ECF No. 27);

6. “Motion to Allege Further Civil and Constitutional Violations to Support Motion

for Injunctive Relief (Document: 21) (sic) under F.R.C.P. 65.” (ECF No. 28);

7. “Motion to Enjoin Crossclaim and Requested Monetary Relief Against Add on

Respondent (Judge Carolyn Wade Blackett of Crim. Ct. Div. 4) under the F.R.C.P.

and the 1st, 4th, 6th, 7th and 14th Amendments.” (ECF No. 30);

8. “Cross-Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus for Court Intervention on Four (4)

Disciplinary Incidents that Occurred on and before Mar. 10, 2025 due to Hearings

by Hearing Staff (Burton 14164) on 6/13/25; and to Support Injunctive Relief of

the Above-Styled Case under F.R.C.P./F.R.C.P. 65.” (ECF No. 33);

4

9. “Motion for Declaratory Judgment on Whether Petitioner’s 3 yr. Sentence of Crim.

Ct., No. 23-06264 and 2 yr. Sentence of Crim. Ct., No. 24-03632 of the Above-

Styled Case should be Concurrent; and Motion for Declaratory Judgment on

Petitioner’s Motion to Enjoin Crossclaim and Requested Monetary Relief against

Add on Respondent (Judge Carolyn Wade Blackett of Crim. Ct. Div. 4) under the

F.R.C.P.” (ECF No. 34);

10. “Motion to Allege Further Violations of Cross-Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

for Court Intervention on Four (4) Disciplinary Incidents that Occurred on and

before 3/10/25 due to Hearings by Hearing Staff (Burton 14164) on 6/13/25, and to

Support Injunctive Relief of Case under the FRCP/FRCP 65.” (ECF No. 35);

11. “Cross Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus for Court Intervention on Disciplinary

Incident: 25-0609-717 by Ofc. C. McKinnie of Document (sic) of USDC, No. 25-

02638, and to Support Injunctive Relief under the FRCP/FRCP 65.” (ECF No. 37);

12. “Cross Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus for Court Intervention on Disciplinary

Incidents: 25-0817-319 by Ofc. Y. Fletcher of Case: 25-02103; and 25-0818-326

by Ofc. C. McKinnie of Case: 25-02638; and to Support Injunctive Relief under

the Fed. R. Civ. P./Fed. R. Civ. P. 65.” (ECF No. 38);

13. “Cross Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus for Court Intervention on Disciplinary

Incident: 25-0826-438 by Ofc. C. McKinnie of Document: 5 (sic) of USDC, No.

25-02638; and to Support Injunctive Relief under the Fed. R. Civ. P. / Fed. R. Civ.

P. 65.” (ECF No. 39);

14. “Motion to Allege Second Further Violations and Imminent Danger to Support

motion for Injunction (sic) Relief under F.R.C.P. 65.” (ECF No. 40);

15. “Motion for Relief from any Order Dismissing Motion for Injunction (sic) Relief

with Requested Relief for Monetary Damages due to Confiscation of Attached

Motion to Allege 2nd Further Violations and Imminent Danger to Support Motion

for Injunction (sic) Relief of this Case due to Inculpatory Evidence under FRCP

and Fed. R. of Evid.; and Motion to Acknowledge to the Court that this Case is not

on Appeal under the FRCP.” (ECF No. 41);

16. “Motion to Allege Further Civil Rights Violations to Support Documents: 2, 7, 9,

12, 15, 21, 27, 28, 33, 35, etc., pursuant to FRCP 65.” (ECF No. 42);

17. “Motion for Discovery to Support Cross-Petitions for a Writ of Habeas Corpus for

Court Intervention on Disciplinary Incidents: 25-0817-319 by Ofc. Y. Fletcher of

Case: 25-02103 and 25-0818-326 and 25-0826-438 by Ofc. C. McKinnie of

Document: 5 (sic) of USDC, No. 25-02638, etc., pursuant to the FRCP/FRCP 65.”

(ECF No. 44);

5

18. This is a duplicate filing of ECF No. 44, except that this copy includes attachments

of disciplinary and hearing reports. (ECF No. 45);

19. “Motion for Court to Intervene into Petitioner not Receiving Food of Indigent

Package on 10/08/25 after Letter was Sent to Respondent as Stated in Motion for

Discovery to Support Documents: 2, 7, 9, 12, 15, 21, 27, 28, 33, 35, etc. on 9/22/25,

pursuant to the F.R.C.P./F.R.C.P. 65.” (ECF No. 46);

20. “Motion for Judge MSN to Appoint Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to

Intervene into Three (3) Crossclaims due to Violations of Cases of Three (3)

Crossclaims by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr., pursuant to the Fed. R. Civ. P. and the

Rules of the Judicial Conference of the U.S. Courts.” (ECF No. 47);

21. “Motion to Enjoin Crossclaim, Additional Respondents and Requested Relief to

Motion to Allege Further Civil Rights Violations to Support Documents: 2, 7, 9,

12, 15, 21, 27, 28, 33, 35, etc. with Motion for Court to Order Respondent to Submit

Video Footages of Petitioner’s Movements on 10/22/25 @ [sic] 1148 hrs and

10/26/25 @ [sic] 1030 hrs under the F.R.C.P./F.R.C.P. 65, 28 U.S.C. Section 2241

and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.”) (ECF No. 48);

22. “Motion to Enjoin 2nd Crossclaim Additional Respondents and Requested Relief

to Document: 42 (sic) with Motion for Court to Order Director to Submit Video

Footages of Petitioner’s Movements on 10/22/25 @ [sic] 1148 hrs and 10/26/25 @

[sic] 1030 hrs under the F.R.C.P./F.R.C.P. 65 and 28 U.S.C. Section 2241.” (ECF

No. 49);

23. “Motion to Enjoin Crossclaim, Additional Respondents and Requested Relief to

Support Documents: 9, 12, 15, and 34 under the Fed. R. Civ. P. and 28 U.S.C.

Section 2241.” (ECF No. 50);

24. “Motion to Enjoin 3rd Crossclaim and Requested Relief of Document: 42; and

Motion for Court/Federal Intervention on Petitioner being Force (sic) to Jump Up

and Down on the Top Bunk in J-A-13 Cell after Petitioner’s Surgery on Hernia on

11/10/25 up until Date under the 8th Amendment, Fed. R. Civ. P. and 28 U.S.C.

Section 2241.” (ECF No. 51);

25. “Motion to Enjoin 1st and 2nd Crossclaims to Motion to Enjoin Petition for a Writ

of Right for Court to Order Respondent to Order Subordinates (Legal Mail

Personnel, Counselor and Officer of Law Library) to Make Copies of Petitioner’s

Legal Papers Once a Week due to Lawsuits against Respondent and Others in

State/Federal Courts under the F.R.C.P. and the 1st, 4th, and 14th Amendments

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2241, etc.” (ECF No. 52);

26. “Motion to Enjoin Petition for a Writ of Right for Court to Order Respondent to

Order Subordinates such as: Legal Mail Personnel, Counselor and Officer of Law

Library to Make Copies of Petitioner’s Legal Papers Once a Week due to

6

Petitioner’s Lawsuits against Respondent and Others in State and Federal Courts

under the F.R.C.P. and the 1st, 4th and 14th Amendments.” (ECF No. 53);

27. “Motion for Court/Federal Intervention on the Respondent(s) (sic) Conspiracy to

Deprive Petitioner of Constitutional Rights of Access to the Courts by Depriving

Petitioner of Copies of Legal Papers to the U.S. Courts under the Fed. R. Civ. P.,

1st, 4th and 14th Amendments pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2241.” (ECF No. 55);

and

28. “Petition for the Court to Intervene into the Petitioner’s Application for Permission

to Appeal in the Tennessee Supreme Court under Rule 11 of the Tennessee Rules

of Appellate Procedure.” (ECF No. 56.)

In the Additional Pending Motions and other filings, Petitioner alleges claims about his

state court sentence, his disciplinary actions, and civil rights claims seeking monetary or injunctive

relief based on his state court proceedings and conditions of confinement—not about the fact or

duration of his confinement.

Yet, Petitioner initiated this matter by filing a petition seeking to seek relief under 28

U.S.C. § 2241, (ECF No. 2 at PageID 9), which provides relief to prisoners “in custody in violation

of the Constitution or laws or treatises of the United States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). A

petition under § 2241 generally arises from “a challenge to the manner in which a sentence is

executed, rather than the validity of the sentence itself.” Capaldi v. Pontesso, 135 F.3d 1122, 1123

(6th Cir. 1998). An incarcerated state prisoner may use § 2241 to challenge the execution of a

sentence or the manner in which a sentence is being served, or to raise claims generally pertaining

to the computation of parole or sentencing credits. See Ali v. Tennessee Bd. of Pardon & Paroles,

431 F.3d 896 (6th Cir. 2005); Greene v. Tenn. Dep’t of Corr., 265 F.3d 369, 372 (6th Cir. 2001);

but see Allen v. White, 185 F. App’x 487, 490 (6th Cir. 2006) (noting that “there exists some

question whether state prisoners may ever proceed under § 2241”).

“However, habeas is not available to review questions unrelated to the cause of detention.

The sole function for a habeas action is to grant relief from unlawful imprisonment or custody, and

7

it cannot be used properly for any other purpose.” Swafford v. Corr. Corp. of Am., Inc., No. 1:08-

cv-202, 2008 WL 4646086, at *1 (E.D. Tenn. Oct. 17, 2008) (citation omitted). Petitioner’s

various Additional Pending Motions seek relief or review for issues unrelated to the cause of his

detention.

A. Civil Rights Claims

First, Petitioner alleges civil rights violations and seeks injunctive relief, monetary

damages, and transfer to a special needs facility. (ECF No. 21, 27, 28, 30, 33, 38–42, 46–49, 51–

53, & 55.) Petitioner’s Additional Pending Motions contain civil rights claims for a variety of

issues, including his medical care, conditions of confinement, and indigent package[s]” (see, e.g.,

ECF Nos. 39, 46); cruel and unusual punishment and medical treatment (ECF No. 40)

The relief sought by Petitioner concerning the conditions of his confinement is not

cognizable in a habeas corpus action.1 (See ECF Nos. 21, 27, 28, 30, 33, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 46,

47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53 & 55.) Challenges to the conditions under which an inmate is confined along

with requests for monetary and injunctive relief are properly brought as civil rights claims under

42 U.S.C. § 1983, rather than as habeas claims under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Accordingly, Petitioner’s

motions that assert civil rights claims (ECF Nos. 21, 27, 28, 30, 33, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 46, 47, 48,

49, 51, 52, 53 & 55) are DENIED.

In addition, Petitioner is a three-strike filer under § 1915(g) of the Prison Litigation Reform

Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915, et seq. (“PLRA”). Petitioner has been declared a vexatious litigant and

1 “[W]here a petitioner claims that no set of conditions would be constitutionally sufficient

the claim should be construed as challenging the fact or extent, rather than the conditions, of the

confinement.” Wilson v. Williams, 961 F.3d 829, 838 (6th Cir. 2020). Petitioner’s conditions of

confinement allegations do not rise to this level.

8

has been admonished for filing baseless motions that waste the Court’s resources with his

repetitive filings. (See, e.g., Benson v. Healthcare Staff of Shelby Cnty. Crim. Justice Ctr., Case

No. 2:23-cv-02510 (W.D. Tenn.), ECF No. 40 at PageID 125.) Petitioner is again warned that, if

he continues to file baseless motions in this § 2241 proceeding, the Court will order that all of his

motions be summarily denied and may impose additional sanctions, including a monetary fine.

B. State Disciplinary Proceedings

State disciplinary proceedings involving the loss of sentencing credits may be properly

brought in a habeas corpus proceeding. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 487–92 (1973). “The

common-law writ of certiorari serves as the proper procedural vehicle through which prisoners

may seek review of decisions by prison disciplinary boards, parole eligibility review boards, and

other similar administrative tribunals.” Willis v. Tenn. Dep’t of Corr., 113 S.W.3d 706, 712 (Tenn.

2003).

Petitioner attempts to have the Court intercede in his state disciplinary actions, but those

claims are not properly before the Court because they do not relate back to the claims in his § 2241

Petition. (See ECF Nos. 2, 7, 33, 35, 37, 38, 39, 44, & 45.) Leave to amend the § 2241 Petition

to add these unrelated claims is DENIED. Petitioner’s original allegations contend that he was

not given jail credits for the time periods from June 27, 2023, through April 18, 2024, and from

May 3, 2024, through November 12, 2024. (ECF No. 2 at Page ID 2.) To the extent Petitioner

seeks review of state disciplinary actions and to have his good time credits restored, (see ECF Nos.

7, 33, 35, 37–39, 44 & 45), he must file a new § 2241 petition and pay the habeas filing fee.)

Petitioner’s motions asserting claims for state disciplinary actions that are unrelated to

original allegations in his § 2241 Petition (ECF Nos. 7, 33, 35, 37, 38, 39, 44 & 45) are DENIED.

9

C. Other Miscellaneous Claims

Petitioner’s state-court habeas appeal is currently pending before the Tennessee Supreme

Court.2 Petitioner asks the Court to “intervene” pursuant to “double jeopardy” and the Fourth and

Fourteenth Amendments and to “pardon and release him” due to his mental and physical illnesses.

(ECF No. 9.) This Court has no ability to release Petitioner from state custody based on mental or

physical illness. But Petitioner has an avenue for relief. After the exhaustion of his state court

remedies, he may seek relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for any alleged constitutional violations.

Here, though, Petitioner has not alleged facts supporting a constitutional claim. (See ECF

No. 9.) Instead, he appears to allege various ineffective assistance of counsel claims that are not

proper in a § 2241 proceeding. (See ECF Nos. 12, 15 & 56.) But again, Petitioner may later seek

relief for these issues under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Finally, Petitioner appears to challenge his state sentencing calculation, his underlying

conviction and to seek monetary relief for various violations of his civil rights. (See ECF Nos. 34

& 50.) A new claim challenging his state sentencing calculation is unrelated to his original petition

(ECF No. 2), so it must be alleged in a new § 2241 proceeding. A challenge to Petitioner’s

underlying conviction is also not cognizable in a § 2241 proceeding and must be brought pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. And, again, Petitioner’s claims seeking monetary relief and alleging

violations of his civil rights must be brought in a civil rights action pursuant to § 1983.

Petitioner’s motions (ECF Nos. 9, 12, 15, 34, 50 & 56) are DENIED.

2 See Tennessee Courts, Appellate Case Search: Rickey Benson,

https://pch.tncourts.gov/CaseDetails.aspx?id=93855&Party=True (last accessed Mar. 19, 2026).

10

APPELLATE ISSUES

The Court is required to evaluate the appealability of its decision dismissing a habeas

petition and will issue a certificate of appealability (“COA”) “only if the applicant has made a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)-(2); see Fed.

R. App. P. 22(b). The Sixth Circuit has determined that a COA is required to for “all state-prisoner

habeas appeals, whether seeking pretrial relief under § 2241 or post-conviction relief under

§ 2254.” Winburn v. Nagy, 956 F.3d 909, 912 (6th Cir. 2020).

Where habeas relief is denied on procedural grounds without reaching the merits of the

underlying constitutional claim, “a COA should issue [only] when the prisoner 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 v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). “[A] COA does

not require a showing that the appeal will succeed.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 337

(2003). Courts should not issue a COA as a matter of course. Bradley v. Birkett, 156 F. App’x

771, 773 (6th Cir. 2005).

Reasonable jurists would not find it debatable whether the Court was correct in its

procedural ruling dismissing the § 2241 Petition for failure to exhaust. Because any appeal by

Petitioner on the issues raised in his § 2241 Petition does not deserve attention, the Court DENIES

a COA.

To appeal in forma pauperis in a § 2241 proceeding, the Petitioner must obtain pauper

status under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a). Kincade v. Sparkman, 117 F.3d 949, 952

(6th Cir. 1997). Rule 24(a) provides that 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)(1). If the

11

district court certifies that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, or otherwise denies leave to

appeal in forma pauperis, the Petitioner must move to proceed in forma pauperis in the appellate

court. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(4)-(5).

For the same reasons the Court denies a COA, the Court concludes that an appeal would

not be taken in good faith. It is therefore CERTIFIED, 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 DENIED.3

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 20th day of March, 2026.

s/ Mark S. Norris

MARK S. NORRIS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3 If Petitioner files a notice of appeal, he must pay the full $605 appellate filing fee or file

a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and supporting affidavit in the Sixth Circuit Court of

Appeals within 30 days of the date of entry of this order. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5).

12