Winkfield v. Stephens, Director TDCJ-CID
Filing
10
Order Accepting 8 Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and Denying Certificate of Appealability. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 11/12/2013) (tln)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
ALFORD J. WINKFIELD, ID# 1664170,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAMS STEPHENS, Director
Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
Correctional Institution Division,
Respondent.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 3:13-CV-3651-L
ORDER
Before the court is Alford J. Winkfield’s (“Winkfield” or “Petitioner”) Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (“Petition”), filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc.
3). This case was referred to Magistrate Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez, who entered Findings,
Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) on October 17,
2013, recommending that the habeas petition be denied and the case dismissed with prejudice as
barred by the statute of limitations. Petitioner filed objections to the Report and contends, based on
Maples v. Thomas, 132 S. Ct. 912 (2012), that the time for filing his federal habeas petition was
tolled because the federal prisoner he hired claimed to be a paralegal but “did not do anything that
could be considered as having ‘merit.’” Pet.’s Obj. 3. The facts in Maple are distinguishable from
those in this case and do not support Petitioner’s contention regarding equitable tolling.
Accordingly, after carefully reviewing the pleadings, file, record in this case, objections, and Report,
the court accepts the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge, overrules Petitioner’s
Order – Page 1
objections, denies his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody, and
dismisses with prejudice this action as barred by applicable statute of limitations.
Considering the record in this case and pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 proceedings, and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c),
the court denies a certificate of appealability.1 The court determines that Petitioner has failed to
show: (1) that reasonable jurists would find this court’s “assessment of the constitutional claims
debatable or wrong;” or (2) that reasonable jurists would find “it debatable whether the petition states
a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right” and “debatable whether [this court] was correct
in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). In support of this
determination, the court accepts and incorporates by reference the magistrate judge’s report filed in
this case. In the event that Petitioner files a notice of appeal, he must pay the $455 appellate filing
fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), unless he has been granted IFP status
by the district court.
It is so ordered this 12th day of November, 2013.
_______________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge
1
Rule 11 of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 Cases provides as follows:
(a)
Certificate of Appealability. The district court must issue or deny a certificate of
appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant. Before entering the final order, the
court may direct the parties to submit arguments on whether a certificate should issue. If the court
issues a certificate, the court must state the specific issue or issues that satisfy the showing required
by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). If the court denies a certificate, the parties may not appeal the denial but
may seek a certificate from the court of appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22. A
motion to reconsider a denial does not extend the time to appeal.
(b)
Time to Appeal. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) governs the time to
appeal an order entered under these rules. A timely notice of appeal must be filed even if the district
court issues a certificate of appealability
Order – Page 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?