Morrison v. Givens

Filing 13

Order Accepting 7 Findings and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and Denying Certificate of Appealability. The petitioner is sanctioned and barred from filing any further challenges to the 2008 conviction in the 282nd District Court in cause number F07- 55832-2, unless he first obtains authorization from the Fifth Circuit. Judge Amber Givens shall be dismissed as a party to this proceeding, and the clerk of court shall designate William Stephens, Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, as respondent. (Ordered by Senior Judge A. Joe Fish on 5/12/2015) (jrr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION

ARTHUR ROY MORRISON,
ID # 1492042,
Petitioner,
VS.
WILLIAM STEPHENS, Director, Texas
Department of Criminal Justice,
Correctional Institutions Division,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
3:15-CV-1057-G (BH)

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the
findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge
and any objections thereto, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the court is of
the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct and
they are accepted as the findings and conclusions of the court.
In the time since the filing of the magistrate judge’s report, sanctioned
petitioner Arthur Roy Morrison has filed four separate documents, entitled

“Designations” (docket entry 9), “Affidavit of Fraud” (docket entry 10), “Omnibus
Motion” (docket entry 11), and “Amended Writ of Injunction” (docket entry 12). A
review of these documents reveals that they, in part, again attempt to raise successive
challenges to an underlying state court conviction, that Morrison has so repeatedly
challenged, that the magistrate judge has recommended additional sanctions be
imposed against Morrison. To the extent these motions and documents again raise
successive claims against petitioner’s underlying conviction in case number F0755832-S in the 282 Judicial District Court C, such motions are DENIED. To the
extent these documents are construed as objections to the April 17, 2015 findings,
conclusions and recommendation of the magistrate judge, such objections are
OVERRULED.
Therefore, for the reasons stated in the findings, conclusions, and
recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, the petition is
CONSTRUED as a successive petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254, and by separate judgment, it will be dismissed without prejudice to the
petitioner’s right to file a motion for leave to file a successive § 2254 petition in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
By separate judgment, Judge Amber Givens shall be DISMISSED as a party to
this proceeding, and the clerk of court shall designate William Stephens, Director of

-2-

the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, as
respondent.
The petitioner is SANCTIONED and BARRED from filing any further
challenges to the 2008 conviction in the 282nd District Court in cause number F0755832-2, unless he first obtains authorization from the Fifth Circuit.
In accordance with FED. R. APP. P. 22(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)and after
considering the record in this case and the recommendation of the magistrate judge,
the petitioner is DENIED a certificate of appealability. The court adopts and
incorporates by reference the magistrate judge’s findings, conclusions and
recommendation in support of its finding that the 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).*

*

Rule 11 of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 Cases, as amended
effective on December 1, 2009, 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
-3-

(continued...)

If the petitioner files a notice of appeal, he must pay the $505.00 appellate
filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and a properly signed
certificate of inmate trust account.
SO ORDERED.

May 12, 2015.

___________________________________
A. JOE FISH
Senior United States District Judge

*

(...continued)
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.
-4-