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.

Jones v. Davis

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division

December 3, 2019

SAM JONES, ID # 1787475, Petitioner,
v.
LORIE DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent.

          FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

          IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE [1]

         Before the Court is a Petitioner/Appellant Request for an Certificate of Appealability, received on November 13, 2019 (doc. 57). Based on the relevant filings and applicable law, the petitioner's motion should be DENIED.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Sam Jones (Petitioner) filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, received on April 13, 2017, and an amended petition that was received on October 23, 2017. (See docs. 3, 30.) On December 13, 2018, it was recommended that the habeas petition be denied as barred by the statute of limitations. (See doc. 38.) The recommendation was accepted, the petition was denied, and judgment was entered on January 3, 2019. (See docs. 39, 40.)

         Petitioner's objections to the recommended dismissal were received on January 8, 2019, after judgment had been entered. (See doc. 41.) His notice of appeal was received on January 16, 2019. (See doc. 42.) On January 23, 2019, it was recommended that the objection be construed as a motion to alter or amend judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) and denied. (See doc. 43.) Petitioner's second notice of appeal was received on that same day. (See doc. 44.) On February 12, 2019, the recommendation that the Rule 59(e) motion be denied was accepted, and a certificate of appealability was denied. (See doc. 49.)

         Petitioner then filed a motion for relief from the judgment under Rule 60(b), which was received on September 10, 2019. (See doc. 50.) On October 3, 2019, it was recommended that the motion be denied, Petitioner's objections were received on October 22, 2019, and the recommendation was accepted on October 25, 2019. (See docs. 51-53.) Petitioner then filed objections and another notice of appeal. (See docs. 52, 55.) He now seeks a certificate of appealability. (See doc. 57.)

         II. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

         Before a § 2254 petitioner can appeal the denial of his petition, he must obtain a certificate of appealability. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). Appellate review of the denial of a habeas petition is limited to the issues on which a certificate of appealability is granted. See Crutcher v. Cockrell, 301 F.3d 656, 658 n.10 (5th Cir. 2002).

         To demonstrate entitlement to a certificate of appealability, a petitioner must show: (1) that reasonable jurists would find this Court's “assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong, ” or (2) that reasonable jurists would find “it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right” and “debatable whether [this Court] was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

         Here, Petitioner has failed to make the requisite showing. His § 2254 petition was denied as barred by the statute of limitations, so this case was resolved procedurally. The law governing the statute of limitations for a § 2254 petition is well established. Therefore, reasonable jurists would not debate whether this Court was correct in its procedural ruling.

         III. RECOMMENDATION

         Petitioner's motion for a certificate of appealability should be DENIED.

         INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

         A copy 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. ยง 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 conclusion 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 ...


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.