Mauldin v. Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Filing
12
MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT for 9 Report and Recommendations. Ordered that the application for the writ of mandamus be dismissed with prejudice. All pending motions are denied. Signed by Judge Leonard Davis on 6/14/11. (mjc, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
ERIC MAULDIN
§
v.
§
THE TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL
APPEALS
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:11cv206
MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT
The Relator Eric Mauldin, proceeding pro se, filed this application for the writ of
mandamus, seeking to have the federal district court issue a writ of mandamus against the Texas
Court of Criminal Appeals. This Court ordered that the matter be referred to the United States
Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and (3) and the Amended Order for the Adoption
of Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges.
Mauldin says that he pleaded guilty to five criminal charges arising from the same
episode, including aggravated assault, endangering a child, burglary of a habitation, and evading
arrest. He received four life sentences and one 20-year sentence, running concurrently. He did not
take an appeal, not wishing to use the same attorney who had advised him to plead guilty, but later
sought an out-of-time appeal, which was denied.
Mauldin also states that he filed an application for the writ of habeas corpus in state
court, which was denied by the Court of Criminal Appeals. In his mandamus petition, he asks that
the federal district court order the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to undertake an “independent
review” of his state habeas petition. He asserts that the Court of Criminal Appeals based its decision
denying habeas relief on “facts presented by the State, which was of no consequence to the claims
presented in Relator’s application, alleging facts totally unrelated to Relator, also trial counsel
1
affidavit was responding to [sic] unrelated to the claims presented.” He argues that the state court’s
evidentiary review was “unfair and prejudiced” and that had the Court of Criminal Appeals
conducted an independent review, this would have been proven. Should the “independent review”
result in denial of the state petition, Mauldin asks that the Court of Criminal Appeals be directed to
issue a written order explaining why he cannot appeal his conviction when it has been “clearly
shown” that his guilty plea was not voluntary and that he was not aware that he could withdraw his
plea.
After review of the pleadings, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending
that the application for mandamus relief be denied. The Magistrate Judge stated that federal district
courts lack jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus against state or county actors or agencies, and
that in the context of applying mandamus to judicial officials, it may be used to confine an inferior
court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction, or to compel it to exercise its authority when
it is the inferior court’s duty to do so.
In this case, the Magistrate Judge concluded, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
is not an “inferior court” to the federal district court for the Eastern District of Texas, and is a state
agency in any event. Thus, the Magistrate Judge concluded that the federal district court lacked
jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against the Court of Criminal Appeals, and recommended
that the case be dismissed.
Mauldin filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report on June 3, 2011. In his
objections, Mauldin says that he is seeking justice where the record and exhibits clearly show that
the trial court ignored facts showing without a doubt that he was denied due process. He states that
he sought mandamus relief from the Court of Criminal Appeals, but his first writ was never
reviewed, and his second mandamus petition to the Court of Criminal Appeals was denied or refused
on May 4, 2011. Thus, he says, he has no other avenue of relief outside of the federal courts.
Mauldin acknowledges that the state district court conducted an evidentiary hearing,
albeit by affidavit. He says that a review of the affidavits will show beyond a reasonable doubt that
2
his right to effective assistance of counsel was violated, but the state courts failed to review the
claims as required by U.S. Supreme Court case law. He again says that he has exhausted all other
remedies, and contends that failure to consider this issue will result in a “direct miscarriage of
justice, because this Court can consider a violation of a constitutional right.”
Mauldin’s objections are without merit. The Magistrate Judge correctly determined
that the federal district court for the Eastern District of Texas lacks jurisdiction to issue writs of
mandamus against the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Steel v. Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals, 275 F.3d 1081, 2001 WL 1468357 (5th Cir., October 26, 2001) (stating that “the district
court’s determination that it had no authority to issue a writ of mandamus [against the Texas Court
of Criminal Appeals] was correct”). Mauldin’s assertions that a miscarriage of justice will occur if
his application for mandamus relief is not granted are not sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the
district court. The Magistrate Judge did not err in recommending that relief be denied.
The Court has conducted a careful de novo review of the pleadings in this cause,
including the Relator’s application for mandamus relief, the Report of the Magistrate Judge, the
Relator’s objections thereto, and all other pleadings and documents in the case. Upon such de novo
review, the Court has concluded that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct and that the
Relator’s objections are without merit. It is accordingly
ORDERED that the Relator’s objections are OVERRULED and the Report of the
Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further
ORDERED that the above-styled application for the writ of mandamus be and hereby
is DISMISSED with prejudice. It is further
ORDERED that any and all motions which may be pending in this civil action are
hereby DENIED.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 14th day of June, 2011.
3
__________________________________
LEONARD DAVIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?