GODDARD v. OLIVER et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
TAVISH GODDARD, 	:
:
Petitioner, 	:
v. 	: 	Case No. 5:25-cv-318-MTT-CHW
:
WARDEN JACOB BEASLEY, 	:
:
Respondent. 	:
________________________________ 	:
ORDER
In accordance with the Court’s previous orders and instructions, pro se Petitioner
Tavish Goddard has filed a renewed motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF
No. 14). 	Petitioner’s motion shows that the spendable amount in his prison trust fund
account is zero, he has not received any funds deposited to his account for several months,
and he therefore cannot pay the $5.00 filing fee. 	ECF No. 14-1 at 1-2. 	Petitioner’s motion
is therefore GRANTED, and it is ORDERED that, within thirty (30) days of the date of
this Order, Petitioner amend his petition to include every unalleged possible constitutional
error or deprivation entitling him to federal habeas corpus relief, failing which Petitioner
will be presumed to have deliberately waived his right to complain of any constitutional
errors or deprivations other than those set forth in the initial petition. 	If amended, Petitioner
will be presumed to have deliberately waived his right to complain of any constitutional
errors or deprivations other than those set forth in his initial and amended habeas petitions.
It is further ORDERED that Respondent file an answer to the allegations of the initial
petition and any amendments within sixty (60) days after service of this Order and in
Case 5:25-cv-00318-MTT-CHW Document 15 Filed 01/23/26 Page 1 of 2

2
compliance with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 	Either with the filing
of the answer or within fifteen (15) days after the answer is filed, Respondent shall move for
the petition to be dismissed or shall explain in writing why the petition cannot be adjudicated
by a motion to dismiss. 	Any and all exhibits and portions of the record that Respondent
relies upon must be filed contemporaneously with Respondent’s answer or dispositive
motion.
No discovery shall be commenced by either party without the express permission of
the Court. 	Unless and until Petitioner demonstrates to this Court that the state habeas
Court’s fact-finding procedure was not adequate to afford a full and fair evidentiary hearing
or that the state habeas court did not afford the opportunity for a full, fair, and adequate
hearing, this Court’s consideration of this habeas petition will be limited to an examination
of the evidence and other matters presented to the state trial, habeas, and appellate courts.
Pursuant to the memorandum of understanding with the Attorney General of the State
of Georgia, a copy of the petition and a copy of this Order shall be automatically served on
the Attorney General and Respondent electronically through CM/ECF. 	A copy of this
Order shall also be served by the Clerk by U.S. mail upon Petitioner. 	Petitioner is advised
that his failure to keep the Clerk of the Court informed as to any change in his mailing
address may result in the dismissal of this action.
SO ORDERED, this 23rd day of January, 2026.
s/ Charles H. Weigle
Charles H. Weigle
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 5:25-cv-00318-MTT-CHW Document 15 Filed 01/23/26 Page 2 of 2