Shackelford v. Texas Attorney General

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING 3 Report and Recommendations of the US Magistrate Judge and Entering Final Judgment. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED without prejudice, with refiling permitted only upon a showing that all sanctions imposed upon Shackelford by any federal court within the jurisdiction of the 5th Circuit COA have been satisfied. Shackelford may not refile his petition, or any civil action, without such a showing. Should Shackelford satisfy sanctions and refile, he is i nstructed to set forth specific allegations showing entitlement to habeas corpus relief. A certificate of appealability is DENIED sua sponte; the denial relates only to an appeal of the present case and has no effect upon Shackelford's right to refile his petition once stanctions have been satisfied. All motions pending in this civil action are DENIED. Signed by Judge Michael H. Schneider on 3/20/2012. (leh, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
KARL SHACKELFORD

§

v.

§

TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:11cv702

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT
The Petitioner Karl Shackelford, proceeding pro se, filed this application for the writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2254 complaining of the legality of a 180-day jail sentence which
he received. 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.
In his petition, Shackelford says that he is challenging “punishment by Attorney General and
County Court No. 2, 180 days.” He does not state what county the sentence came from, nor what
the offense was, nor provide any basis for his challenge to the sentence. Consequently, the
Magistrate Judge said, Shackelford’s petition did not set out any basis for habeas corpus relief.
Furthermore, the Magistrate Judge noted that the Northern District of Texas has sanctioned
Shackelford $100.00 in three separate cases and barred him from filing any more litigation, either
through civil rights or habeas corpus proceedings, until he satisfies those sanctions. The Magistrate
Judge observed that the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas honors sanctions
imposed by other federal district courts within the State of Texas, a practice which has been upheld
by the Fifth Circuit. Balawajder v. Scott, 160 F.3d 1066, 1068 (5th Cir. 1998).

1

Shackelford offered no proof that he had satisfied the sanctions, and the dockets of the
Northern District of Texas did not show that the sanctions had been satisfied. Accordingly, the
Magistrate Judge recommended that this petition be dismissed without prejudice, with refiling
conditioned upon a showing that all sanctions imposed upon Shackelford by any court within the
jurisdiction of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals have been satisfied. The Magistrate Judge also
cautioned Shackelford that if he should refile his petition upon satisfaction of the sanctions, he must
set out specific facts showing his entitlement to relief. Finally, the Magistrate Judge recommended
that a certificate of appealability be denied sua sponte with regard to an appeal of the present case.
Shackelford filed objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge on January 19, 2012. In
his objections, Shackelford says that he is challenging a decision by Smith County Court No. 2,
which sentenced him to 180 days for non-payment of child support. He says that the charging
instrument was dismissed on August 9, 2011, and thus is “insufficient and void.” The only mention
of the sanctions comes in the following paragraph, which appears in the “Relief” section of
Shackelford’s objections:
Come asking the United States District Court of Tyler, Texas to fix complaint with
this amended name and amended exhibit and see aider and abetter for this “sanction”
file in Smith County of Tyler, TX, U.S. Court, also see aider and abetter for Judge
Judith K. Guthrie and Judge Davis for the 6 year held in TDCJ for statute of
limitation amended name damage 1 million.
These objections plainly fail to show that the Report of the Magistrate Judge was in error. As the
Magistrate Judge said, the sanctions were imposed on Shackelford by the Northern District of Texas
and are honored by the Eastern District. He has not shown that he has satisfied these sanctions, and
so the Magistrate Judge correctly recommended that his petition be dismissed until he does so.
The Court has conducted a careful de novo review of the pleadings in this cause, together
with the Report of the Magistrate Judge and the Petitioner’s objections thereto. Upon such de novo
review, the Court has concluded that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct. It is accordingly
ORDERED that the Petitioner’s objections are OVERRULED and the Report of the
Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further
2

ORDERED that the above-styled application for the writ of habeas corpus be and hereby is
DISMISSED without prejudice, with refiling permitted only upon a showing that all sanctions
imposed upon Shackelford by any federal court within the jurisdiction of the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals have been satisfied. Shackelford may not refile his petition, or any other civil action,
without such a showing. It is further
ORDERED that should Shackelford satisfy the sanctions and refile his petition, he is
instructed that he must set forth specific facts showing entitlement to habeas corpus relief, not merely
general allegations. It is further
ORDERED that the Petitioner Karl Shackelford is hereby DENIED a certificate of
.
appealability sua sponte; the denial of this certificate relates only to an appeal of the present case and
has no effect upon Shackelford’s right to refile his petition once he has satisfied all of the sanctions
imposed upon him. Finally, it is
ORDERED that any and all motions which may be pending in this civil action are hereby
DENIED.
It is SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 20th day of March, 2012.

____________________________________
MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3