Williams v. Director TDCJ-CID

Filing 6

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING 2 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Signed by District Judge Ron Clark on 6/28/18. (ljw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUFKIN DIVISION
LESTER SAMUEL WILLIAMS

§

VS.

§

DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:18-CV-78

ORDER OVERRULING PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Lester Samuel Williams, a prisoner confined in the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, brought this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
The court ordered that this matter be referred to the Honorable Keith F. Giblin, United States
Magistrate Judge, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this court. The
Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing the petition without prejudice because it is a successive
petition that was filed without authorization from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit.
The court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge, along with the record and the pleadings. Petitioner filed objections to the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.
The court has conducted a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and
the applicable law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). After careful consideration of all the pleadings and
the relevant case law, the court concludes that petitioner’s objections lack merit.

Petitioner contends that he is seeking relief under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(a),
and his filing was incorrectly construed as a habeas petition. Rule 35(a) permits a district court to
correct a federal sentence that resulted from an arithmetical, technical, or other clear error. It does
not offer an avenue of relief to a state prisoner seeking to correct his state sentence.
In addition, petitioner is not entitled to the issuance of a certificate of appealability. An
appeal from a judgment denying federal habeas corpus relief may not proceed unless a judge issues
a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; FED. R. APP. P. 22(b). The standard for granting
a certificate of appealability, like that for granting a certificate of probable cause to appeal under
prior law, requires 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); see also Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1982). In making that substantial
showing, petitioner need not establish that he should 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; Avila v. Quarterman, 560 F.3d 299, 304 (5th Cir.
2009). If the petition was denied on procedural grounds, petitioner must show that jurists of reason
would find it debatable: (1) whether the petition raises a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional
right, and (2) whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484;
Elizalde, 362 F.3d at 328. Any doubt regarding whether to grant a certificate of appealability is
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 (5th Cir. 2000).

2

Here, petitioner has not shown that any of the issues raised by his claims are subject to debate
among jurists of reason, or that a procedural ruling was incorrect. In addition, 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.
ORDER
Accordingly, petitioner’s objections (document no. 5) are OVERRULED. The findings of
fact and conclusions of law of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and the report of the Magistrate
Judge (document no. 2) is ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered in this case in accordance
with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. A certificate of appealability will not be issued.

So Ordered and Signed
Jun 28, 2018

3