Williams v. Dallas County District Court No 5 et al
Filing
14
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 Adopting Findings and Recommendations re: 12 Findings and Recommendations on Case re: 3 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Milton Veran Williams. (Ordered by Judge David C Godbey on 12/17/2015) (ykp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
MILTON VERAN WILLIAMS,
ID # 399375,
Petitioner,
vs.
DALLAS COUNTY DISTRICT
COURT NUMBER 5, et al.,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 3:15-CV-2924-N (BH)
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the Amended 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 Amended
Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and they are accepted as the Findings
and Conclusions of the Court.
By separate judgement, the petition under § 2254 will be TRANSFERRED to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit pursuant to Henderson v. Haro, 282 F.3d 862, 864 (5th
Cir. 2002) and In re Epps, 127 F.3d 364, 365 (5th Cir. 1997).
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
Amended 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).1
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.
SIGNED this 17th day of December, 2015.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1
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 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
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?