Morgan v. Stephens, Director TDCJ-CID
Filing
8
Order: Habeas corpus petition is successive, and the clerk is directed to transfer the matter to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. (Fifth Circuit notified via copy of the Notice of Electronic Filing.) Order Accepting 6 Findings and Recommendations and Denying Certificate of Appealability on Case re: 3 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Thomas Gerald Morgan. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 12/31/2013) (cea)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
THOMAS GERALD MORGAN,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM STEPHENS, Director,
Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
Correctional Institutions Division,
Respondent.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 3:13-CV-4706-L
ORDER
Before the court is Thomas Gerald Morgan’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, filed November 27, 2013. The case was referred to Magistrate
Judge Paul D. Stickney, who entered Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United
States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) on December 12, 2013, recommending that the petition be
transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. No objections have been
filed.
On January 8, 2008, Petitioner filed a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus. On October
22, 2009, the court denied the petition. On May 7, 2010, the Fifth Circuit denied a certificate of
appealability. On November 27, 2013, Petitioner filed the instant petition. Since the Fifth Circuit
has not issued an order authorizing the court to consider this successive petition, the court is without
jurisdiction to consider it, and the petition must be transferred to the Fifth Circuit.
Order - Page 1
Having reviewed the pleadings, file, and record in this case, and the findings and conclusions
of the magistrate judge, the court accepts the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions as those
of the court. Accordingly, the court transfers Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
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.* 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 $505 appellate filing
fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), unless he has been granted IFP status
by the district court.
*
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
It is so ordered this 31st day of December, 2013.
_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge
Order - Page 3
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?