Moody v. Thaler
Filing
11
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER. Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus should be dismissed without prejudice to his ability to reassert his claims if permission is granted by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Signed by Judge Thad Heartfield on 4/9/2012. (bjc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION
DONALD MOODY
§
VS.
§
DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11cv237
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Petitioner Donald Moody, an inmate confined in the Neal Unit of the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Discussion
Here, petitioner has made three previous challenges to the validity of his 1993 conviction and
sentence for two counts of attempted murder. See In Re Moody, No. 02-41549 (5th Cir. Mar. 11,
2003). Title 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) requires individuals who seek to file a second or successive habeas
corpus petition to obtain leave of the appropriate Court of Appeals for an order authorizing the
district court to consider such second or successive application.1 Moreover, the relevant statute
requires that the court dismiss a claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus petition if
that claim was presented in a prior habeas application.2 Petitioner, however, did not obtain prior
authorization from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for this court to consider his petition.
1
Title 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) reads, in part, as follows:
***
(A) Before a second or successive application permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the
applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to
consider the application.
(B) A motion in the court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider a second or
successive application shall be determined by a three-judge panel of the court of appeals.
28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3).
2
"A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under Section 2254 that was presented
in a prior application shall be dismissed." 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1).
Ordinarily, the court would consider transferring this motion to the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals. However, on February 15, 2002, petitioner filed a motion with the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals seeking leave to file a second or successive habeas application in the district court. The
motion was denied. In Re Moody, No. 02-40260 (5th Cir. May 7, 2002). Further, as set forth above,
petitioner has made three previous challenges to the validity of his 1993 conviction and sentence for
two counts of attempted murder. Additionally, petitioner was warned by the Fifth Circuit that the
further filing of frivolous and repetitive pleadings challenging his 1993 conviction may result in the
imposition of sanctions. Id. Thus, petitioner's petition should be denied without prejudice to
petitioner's ability to reassert his claims if permission is granted by the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals.3
ORDER
For the reasons set forth above, petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus should be
dismissed without prejudice to his ability to reassert his claims if permission is granted by the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals. A final judgment will be entered in this case in accordance with this
memorandum.
SIGNED this the 9 day of April, 2012.
____________________________
Thad Heartfield
United States District Judge
3
To the extent that the petition may be liberally construed to also contest the denial of parole, petitioner's claim
is without merit. The burden is on petitioner to prove he falls within the narrow range of people who can receive habeas
corpus relief based upon denial of parole. See Williford v. Estelle, 672 F.2d 552, 555 (5th Cir.1982) (stating “[t]he petitioner
in a habeas corpus proceeding bears the burden of proof on his right to relief”). Petitioner's conclusory claims do not state
a basis for relief. An inmate in Texas has no constitutional right to release under the Texas parole statutes. Orellana v. Kyle,
65 F.3d 29, 32 (5th Cir. 1995); Creel v. Keene, 928 F.2d 707 (5th Cir. 1991). The Fifth Circuit has reviewed the parole statue
in effect at the time of petitioner's conviction and concluded the statue does not create a constitutional right to release on
parole. See Williams v. Briscoe, 641 F.2d 274, 276 (5th Cir. 1981). Thus, to the extent petitioner may contend he has a
constitutional right to release on parole, he is incorrect. See id.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?