DAVIS v. WILLIAMS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
ZYKERIA DAVIS, 	:
:
Petitioner, 	:
v. 	: 	Case No. 5:25-cv-538-TES-CHW
:
JESSIE WILLIAMS, 	:
:
Respondent. 	:
________________________________ 	:
ORDER
Before the Court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking relief pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254 on behalf of Petitioner Zykeria Davis, an inmate in the Emanuel
Women’s Facility in Swainsboro, Georgia. ECF No. 1. On January 29, 2026, Petitioner
Davis was ordered to either pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit a complete and proper
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Petitioner was also directed to recast her
Petition on one of the Court’s standard forms. Petitioner was given 14 days to comply,
and she was warned that the failure to fully and timely comply with the Court’s orders
and instructions could result in the dismissal of her case. See generally ECF No. 3.
The time for compliance passed without a response from Petitioner. As such, on
March 3, 2026, the Court ordered Petitioner to respond and show cause why her Petition
should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the January 29th Order. Petitioner was
also directed to either pay the filing fee or submit her motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis and to recast her Petition on the Court’s standard form if she wanted to
proceed with this action. Petitioner was again given 14 days to respond, and she was
Case 5:25-cv-00538-TES-CHW Document 5 Filed 04/13/26 Page 1 of 3

2
again warned that failure to respond would likely result in the dismissal of this action. See
generally ECF No. 4.
The time for compliance has again expired without a response from Petitioner.
As Petitioner has been warned, the failure to comply with the Court’s orders and
instructions is cause for dismissal of this case. Accordingly, the Petition is DISMISSED
without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41; see also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 489
(2000) (failure to comply with a court order is grounds for dismissal in a habeas case).
To the extent that this action can be construed as one that requires a certificate of
appealability (“COA”), Petitioner has no absolute entitlement to appeal this dismissal.
Before she may appeal, the district court must first issue a COA. See 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Rule 11(a); see also Reedman v. Thomas, 305 F. App’x
544, 545 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (granting COA on issue of whether habeas
petition was properly dismissed for failure to comply with court order). When, as here,
“the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the
prisoner's underlying constitutional claim,” a COA will not be issued unless the prisoner
can show, at least, “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 478. Reasonable jurists could not find that a dismissal of the instant action for
Petitioner’s failure to prosecute and comply with the Court’s orders was debatable or
wrong. See Knox v. Morgan, 457 F. App’x 777, 779 (10th Cir. 2012) (denying COA
where district court dismissed habeas petition without prejudice for failing to comply
Case 5:25-cv-00538-TES-CHW Document 5 Filed 04/13/26 Page 2 of 3

3
with court orders). Thus, to the extent a COA is necessary, Petitioner is DENIED a COA.
See Alexander v. Johnson, 211 F.3d 895, 898 (5th Cir. 2000) (approving denial of COA
before movant filed a notice of appeal).
SO ORDERED, this 13th day of April, 2026.
S/ Tilman E. Self, III
TILMAN E. SELF, III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:25-cv-00538-TES-CHW Document 5 Filed 04/13/26 Page 3 of 3