United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
ISMAEL HERNANDEZ PADILLA TDCJ No. 356764, Petitioner,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
L. HORAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Ismael Hernandez Padilla, a Texas prisoner and frequent
litigant, filed a pro se Motion of Request to Reopen
Priorly [sic] Filed Appeals, Granted Permission to Proceed
Indigent in Appeals, requesting that the Court reopen some 25
of his prior actions [Dkt. No. 2] (the “Motion to
Reopen”). This resulting action has been referred to
the undersigned United States magistrate judge for pretrial
management under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and a standing order
of reference from Senior United States District Judge Sam R.
Cummings. The undersigned issues these findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and recommendation that, for the reasons
explained below, the Court should deny the Motion to Reopen
and administratively close this action.
Background, Legal Standards, and Analysis
on prior sanctions orders from the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and this Court, Padilla is
barred from filing any pleadings that challenge his 1983
state convictions for robbery and rape, see State v.
Padilla, Nos. F82-90756 & F83-88766, until the
monetary sanctions imposed on him are paid in full unless he
first obtains leave of the court in which he seeks to file
his pleadings, see, e.g., Padilla v.
Stephens, No. 3:14-cv-779-B-BK, Dkt. Nos. 5 & 6
(N.D. Tex. 2014); Padilla v. Stephens, No. 14-10473
(5th Cir. June 8, 2014).
Fifth Circuit recently recounted,
Padilla's repeated, unsuccessful efforts to attack his
convictions have resulted in the imposition of sanctions by
this court totaling $700, and he is barred from filing in
this court or any court subject to this court's
jurisdiction any pleadings that challenge his convictions
until those sanctions are paid in full unless he first
obtains leave of the court in which he seeks to file his
In re Padilla, No. 18-90018 (5th Cir. Sept. 5, 2018)
(citing Padilla v. Stephens, No. 14-10354 (5th Cir.
Mar. 10, 2015); Padilla v. Stephens, No. 14-10597
(5th Cir. Mar. 6, 2015); Padilla v. Stephens, No.
14-10662 (5th Cir. Mar. 4, 2015); Padilla v.
Stephens, No. 14-10591 (5th Cir. Feb. 10, 2015); In
re Padilla, No. 14-10344 (5th Cir. July 22, 2014);
In re Padilla, No. 14-10307 (5th Cir. June 18,
2014); Padilla v. Stephens, No 14-10473)).
the Motion to Reopen, Padilla fails to show that the monetary
sanctions imposed by the Fifth Circuit and this Court have
been paid in full. And he fails to provide a persuasive
reason why the Court should grant him leave to file pleadings
in some 25 closed cases that would effectively request leave
to file an out-of-time appeal in each action, particularly
considering that the Fifth Circuit recently denied his
request for permission to proceed after having been
sanctioned, in which he raised similar assertions - that the
sanctions orders imposed on him are unconstitutional and
block his access to the court. See In re Padilla,
No. 18-90018 (“Padilla's motion to proceed as a
sanctioned litigant is DENIED. Padilla is again CAUTIONED
that the filing of frivolous or repetitive challenges to his
convictions in this court or any court subject to this
court's jurisdiction will subject him to additional and
progressively more severe sanctions.”).
Court should therefore deny Motion to Reopen and
administratively close this action.
Court should deny Petitioner Ismael Hernandez Padilla's
Motion of Request to Reopen Priorly [sic] Filed Appeals,
Granted Permission to Proceed Indigent in Appeals [Dkt. No.
2] and administratively close this action.
of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation shall be
served on all parties in the manner provided by law. Any
party who objects to any part of these findings, conclusions,
and recommendation must file specific written objections
within 14 days after being served with a copy. See
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). In order to
be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding
or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis
for the objection, and specify the place in the magistrate
judge's findings, conclusions, and recommendation where
the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely
incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before
the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file
specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from
appealing the factual ...