Noiel v. Rusk State Hospital

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE. It is ordered that this application for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed without prejudice. Petitioner is denied a certificate of appealability sua sponte. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 10/11/16. (mrp, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
JEFFREY D. NOIEL

§

v.

§

RUSK STATE HOSPITAL

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:15cv1158

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT
The Petitioner Jeffrey Noiel, proceeding pro se, filed this application for the writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2254 complaining of the legality of his confinement. 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.
Noiel complained that he “was being held hostage against his will in Rusk State Hospital.”
After review of the pleadings, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report on February 1, 2016,
recommending that the petition be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies.
The Magistrate Judge observed that while federal habeas corpus is the appropriate means for seeking
relief from such civil confinement, petitioners are required to exhaust state remedies prior to filing
in federal court. Washington v. State of Texas, civil action no. H-05-3384, 2005 WL 3133937
(S.D.Tex., November 23, 2005); see also Wiley v. 22nd J.D.C. Clerk, civil action no. 13-5040, 2014
WL 247865 (E.D.La., January 17, 2014).
Persons committed to a mental hospital in the State of Texas may challenge this commitment
by filing a state habeas application or a request with the state court entering the commitment order.
Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. art. 574.068(a). Noiel did not allege that he pursued either of these

1

remedies, much less that he has presented his claims to the highest court for the state of Texas as is
required to exhaust state remedies. The on-line records of the Texas Court of Criminal show that
Noiel’s last state habeas corpus petition challenged a 1988 conviction for assault and was dismissed
on July 17, 2013, as successive. Ex Parte Noiel, cause no. WR-22,117-05.
Noiel filed a motion for extension of time to file objections to the Report on February 16,
2016. On March 8, 2016, he contacted the court by telephone and it was discovered that he had
never received habeas and in forma pauperis forms which had been previously mailed to him, so
these were re-mailed.
Noiel was given until July 11, 2016, in which to file his objections. On that date, he filed
a second motion for extension of time in which to object. This motion was granted and Noiel was
given until August 29, 2016, in which to file objections. This order stated that no further objections
would be granted unless upon a showing of exceptionally good cause.
On August 30, 2016, Noiel filed two identical motions for extension of time. In these
motions, Noiel states that his “health and human rights number” is primary and his Texas driver’s
license number is secondary. On December 13, 2013, Noiel states that he received a traffic ticket
in Texarkana for having a suspended driver’s license, no. [omitted], but “there weren’t any
fingerprints recorded other than TDCJ Texas driver’s license no. [second number omitted] on
Texarkana Department of Highway public safety files.”1
Noiel then states that he is currently taking medication which has side effects of sleeping
disorders and mood swings. He was diagnosed with chronic paranoid schizophrenia in 1999 and
2014. He attaches a letter from the Texas Department of State Health Services dated January 13,
2016, referring to the investigation of a complaint regarding hospital staff restraining him to draw
blood. The investigation found that Noiel’s physician wrote an order for his restraint and blood

1

The first omitted number appears to be a Texas driver’s license number, while the
second one appears to be an inmate number from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
Correctional Institutions Division.

2

draw which was necessary because he was on court ordered medications. He also includes a letter
from 2014 giving him the results of DNA tests, copies of his birth certificate and driver’s license,
a letter from a psychiatrist saying he doesn’t have to take medications in the absence of a court order
and there is no evidence of such an order, and a copy of his fingerprints from the Texarkana police
department.
The Magistrate Judge’s Report was entered on February 1 and received by Noiel on February
4, 2016. This Report centered around one issue - whether Noiel had exhausted his state remedies
by challenging his present confinement through the courts of the State of Texas. Noiel’s most recent
motions for extension of time show no reason why he should be granted yet more time, in addition
to the eight months which have already elapsed since the entry of the Report, to address the single
issue of whether or not he has pursued his claims in state court. His motions for a third extension
of time (docket no.’s 13 and 14) are DENIED.
Because Noiel has not filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report despite having had
more than ample time in which to do so, he is barred from de novo review by the District Judge of
those findings, conclusions, and recommendations and, except upon grounds of plain error, from
appellate review of the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and
adopted by the district court. Douglass v. United Services Automobile Association, 79 F.3d 1415,
1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this cause and the Report of the Magistrate Judge.
Upon such review, the Court has determined that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct. See
United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918, 109 S.Ct. 3243
(1989) (where no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is
“clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law.”) It is accordingly
ORDERED that the Report of the Magistrate Judge (docket no. 6) is ADOPTED as the
opinion of the District Court. It is further

3

ORDERED that the above-styled application for the writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE. It is further
ORDERED that the Petitioner Jeffrey Noiel is DENIED a certificate of appealability sua
sponte. The denial of the certificate of appealability relates only to an appeal of the present case and
shall not prevent Noiel from challenging his confinement in state court, nor from refiling his petition
in federal court once his state remedies have been exhausted. Finally, it is
ORDERED that any and all motions which may be pending in this action are hereby
DENIED.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 11 day of October, 2016.

___________________________________
Ron Clark, United States District Judge

4