United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
McBride, United States District Judge
is a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 filed by petitioner, Gerald Anthony Wright, a
state prisoner incarcerated in the Correctional Institutions
Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ),
against Lorie Davis, Director of TDCJ,
respondent. No service has issued upon respondent.
After having considered the pleadings, the court records
filed in petitioner's previous federal habeas actions,
and the relief sought by petitioner, the court has concluded
that the petition should be summarily dismissed as an abuse
of the writ and that sanctions should be imposed.
Factual and Procedural History
history relevant to this case is set forth in the magistrate
judge's findings and conclusions in Wright v.
Quarterman, Civil Action No. 4:08-CV-343-A, 2008 WL
4787647 (N.D.Tex. Oct. 27, 2008). Petitioner continues to
serve a life sentence in TDCJ on his 1986 conviction for
sexual assault in Tarrant County, Texas, Case No. 0272196D.
Petitioner has filed at least six prior federal petitions
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in this court, two of which are
relevant to the instant petition. Wright v. Stevens,
Civil Action No. 4:14-CV-138-A (dismissed as successive);
Wright v. Quarterman, Civil Action No. 4:08-CV-343-A
(dismissed as successive and a certificate of appealability
denied by the Fifth Circuit). The court takes judicial notice
of the pleadings and state court records filed in
petitioner's prior federal habeas actions.
of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United
States District Courts and 28 U.S.C. § 2243 both
authorize a habeas corpus petition to be summarily
dismissed. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
recognizes a district court's authority under Rule 4 to
examine and dismiss frivolous habeas petitions prior to any
answer or other pleading by the state. Riser v.
Johnson, 163 F.3d 326, 328 (5th Cir. 1999). From the
face of the instant petition and court records, it is
apparent that this is a second or successive petition. See 28
U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1).
petition, petitioner claims that his "legal eligibility
for mandatory supervision must be honored" by the Texas
Board of Pardons and Paroles and that the board is
"using harsher standards and policies to prolong"
his incarceration.(Pet. 6, ECF No. 1.) Petitioner has raised
the same or similar claims in his prior petitions in Civil
Action Nos. 4:14-CV-138-A and 4:08-CV-343-A and is well aware
of the successive-petition bar and the requirement that he
obtain authorization to file such a petition from the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals. Petitioner has not demonstrated
that the Fifth Circuit has authorized him to file the instant
petition. This court is therefore without jurisdiction to
consider the petition. In re Epps, 127 F.3d 364, 365
(5th Cir. 1997); United States v. Orozco-Ramirez,
211 F.3d 862, 867 (5th Cir. 2000).
undersigned's Memorandum Opinion and Order in No.
4:14-CV-138-A, petitioner was warned as follows:
Federal courts have inherent authority "to protect the
efficient and orderly administration of justice and . . . to
command respect for [its] orders, judgments, procedures, and
authority." In re Stone, 986 F.2d 898, 902 (5th
Cir. 1993). Included in such power is the authority to levy
sanctions in response to abusive litigation practices.
Id. Sanctions may be appropriate when a pro
se litigant has a history of submitting multiple
frivolous claims and can include restrictions on the ability
to file future lawsuits without leave of court and monetary
sanctions. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 11; Baum v. Blue Moon
Ventures, LLC, 513 F.3d 181, 189 (5th Cir. 2008);
Mendoza v. Lynaugh, 989 F.2d 191, 195-97 (5th Cir.
Petitioner is warned that the filing of any other successive
challenge to his 1986 state court conviction or sentence
and/or his eligibility for mandatory supervision release,
without first obtaining and providing to this Court an
authorization from the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit, may result in the imposition of sanctions,
including a monetary penalty, a bar to filing any further
habeas petitions, motions or lawsuits, or other impediments.
(Mem. Op. 4-5, ECF No. 5.)
persists in filing repetitive and frivolous habeas petitions
and has failed to heed the court's warning. Accordingly,
the court concludes that a monetary sanction is appropriate.
reasons discussed herein, The court ORDERS that the petition
of petitioner for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254 be, and is hereby, dismissed as an abuse
of the writ and that a monetary sanction in the amount of
$100.00 be, and is hereby, imposed due to petitioner's
repetitious and frivolous federal filings. Petitioner is
prohibited from filing any pro se civil ...