Jones v. Stephens, Director TDCJ-CID

Filing 8

ORDER ACCEPTING 6 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, AND DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY. (Ordered by Chief Judge Jorge A Solis on 4/27/2015) (tln)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
OREN JAMES JONES,
Inmate No. 1632157,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM STEPHENS,
Director, TDCJ-CID,
Respondent.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

No. 3:14-CV-3759-P

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, AND
DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
The United States Magistrate Judge has issued Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation
(“FCR”) in this case. Petitioner has filed objections to the FCR in which he asserts that he is actually
innocent and that he is entitled to equitable tolling. (See Written Objection, doc. 7.) After reviewing
all relevant matters of record in this case, including the FCR and the objections to the FCR, in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court finds that the Findings and Conclusions of the
Magistrate Judge are correct. Petitioner has not made a sufficient showing of actual innocence. Nor
has he shown rare or exceptional circumstances to warrant equitable tolling. The Court has conducted a de novo review and determination as to the issues to which Petitioner has specifically
objected. Having reviewed the remainder of the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of
the Magistrate Judge for clear error, it is satisfied that there is no clear error on the face of the record.
Accordingly, the Court hereby ACCEPTS the Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge
as the Findings and Conclusions of the Court. And pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases, it DISMISSES the petition for writ of habeas corpus with prejudice as barred
by the 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 Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts,
and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability. The Court adopts and
incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge’s Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation filed
in this case in support of its finding that Petitioner has failed to show that (1) reasonable jurists
would find this Court’s “assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong” or (2) 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).1
In the event Petitioner files a notice of appeal, he must pay the $505.00 appellate filing fee
or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
SO ORDERED this 27th day of April, 2015.

_________________________________
JORGE A. SOLIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1

As amended on December 1, 2009, Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the
United States District Courts reads 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.

2