Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lowe v. Stephens

United States District Court, Fifth Circuit

December 18, 2013

EDMOND STEVE LOWE, 573977, Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM STEPHENS, Director, Texas Dept. Of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent.

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

PAUL D. STICKNEY, Magistrate Judge.

This case has been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and a standing order of reference from the district court. The Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are as follows:

I. Background

On December 19, 1990, Petitioner was convicted of murder and was sentenced to sixtyfive years in prison. The State of Texas v. Edmond Steven Lowe, No. F90-34490-P (203rd Jud. Dist. Ct., Dallas, Tex. Dec. 19, 1990).

Petitioner does not challenge his conviction. Instead, he argues that Respondent has unconstitutionally denied him release to parole.

On May 16, 2009, Petitioner filed a state petition for writ of habeas corpus raising his parole claims. Ex parte Lowe, No. 23, 751-05. On September 5, 2012, the Court of Criminal Appeals denied the petition without written order on the findings of the trial court.

On December 26, 2012, Petitioner filed the instant § 2254 petition. On March 8, 2013, he filed an amended petition. He argues:

1. Respondent denied him parole in violation of the Due Process Clause;
2. Respondent's decision to deny parole has effectively modified the judgment;
3. Respondent's decision to deny parole violates the Ex Post Facto Clause;
4. He does not have an adequate remedy at law; and
5. Respondent's decision to deny parole violates Petitioner's rights under the Equal Protection Clause.

On July 24, 2013, Respondent filed his answer arguing, inter alia, that the petition is barred by the statute of limitations. On October 22, 2013, Petitioner filed his reply. The Court now ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.