Wiley v. Texas Board of Pardons & Paroles
MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING 4 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Signed by District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III on 12/4/2017. (sm, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CHARLES ROBERT WILEY
TEX. BD. OF PARDONS AND PAROLES
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17cv116
MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Charles Robert Wiley, formerly an inmate confined within the Texas Department of Criminal
of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, filed this petition for writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court referred this matter to the Honorable
Caroline M. Craven, United States Magistrate Judge, for consideration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Petitioner is challenging the revocation of his release on parole. The Magistrate Judge has
submitted a Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge recommending the
petition be dismissed without prejudice as repetitious. Docket No. 4 at 1. The recommendation was
based on the Magistrate Judge’s determination that Petitioner has another petition challenging the
revocation of his release on parole pending before this Court. Id.
The Report and Recommendation was submitted on October 2, 2017. Id. The time for
filing objections has elapsed without Petitioner filing any objections to the Report and
Recommendation. As no objections were filed, this Court reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings
of fact and conclusions of law for plain error. Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276-77 (5th
The Court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge, along with the record and pleadings. Having considered the record and the Report,
the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the current petition should be dismissed because
it is repetitive of a prior petition. Accordingly, finding no clear error in the findings of fact and
conclusions of law of the Magistrate Judge, this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s findings and
conclusions as those of the Court. It is accordingly
ORDERED that this petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE as repetitious.
Additionally, the Court finds that Petitioner is not entitled to a certificate of appealability.
An appeal from a judgment denying post-conviction collateral relief may not proceed unless a judge
issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253. The standard for a certificate of
appealability requires the Petitioner to make a substantial showing of the denial of a federal
constitutional right. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000); Elizalde v. Dretke, 362
F.3d 323, 328 (5th Cir. 2004). To make a substantial showing, the Petitioner need not establish that
he would prevail on the merits. Rather, he must demonstrate that the issues are subject to debate
among jurists of reason, that a court could resolve the issues in a different manner, or that the
questions presented are worthy of encouragement to proceed further. See Slack, 529 U.S. at 483-84.
Any doubt regarding whether to grant a certificate of appealability should be resolved in favor of the
Petitioner, and the severity of the penalty may be considered in making this determination. See
Miller v. Johnson, 200 F.3d 274, 280-81 (2000).
In this case, Petitioner has not shown that the issue of whether the current petition is
repetitious of a prior petition is subject to debate among jurists of reason, and the questions presented
are not worthy of encouragement to proceed further. Therefore, Petitioner has failed to make a
sufficient showing to merit the issuance of a certificate of appealability. Accordingly, a certificate
of appealability will not be issued.
SIGNED this 4th day of December, 2017.
ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 2 of 2
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?