Blakely v. Valdez

Filing 8

ORDER: The court determines that the 6 findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and accepts them as those of the court. Accordingly, the court denies his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and dismisses without prejudice this action. The court prospectively denies a certificate of appealability. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 10/18/2017) (sss)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION

QUINCY BLAKELY,
Petitioner,
v.
SHERIFF LUPE VALDEZ,
Respondent.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 3:17-CV-1308-L

ORDER
On June 20, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge Paul D. Stickney entered the Findings,
Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”),
recommending that Petitioner’s claims challenging his arrest and indictment be dismissed under
the Younger abstention doctrine; and (2) Petitioner’s claim that his bond is unreasonably high be
dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies. No objections were filed
to the report.
Having reviewed the pleadings, file, record in this case, and Report, the court determines
that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and accepts them as those of
the court. Accordingly, the court denies his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and
dismisses without prejudice this action.
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 prospectively denies a certificate of appealability. * The court determines that Petitioner

*

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

Order –Page 1

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 Report
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.
It is so ordered this 18th day of October, 2017.

_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge

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