Dawson v. Davis-Director TDCJ-CID

Filing 6

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 accepts 4 Findings and Recommendation s on Case re: 3 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Timmy Antonio Dawson. If Petitioner files a notice of appeal, the Court notes that he must pay the filing fee or file a motion for leave proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. (Ordered by Judge David C Godbey on 8/3/2017) (epm)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION TIMMY ANTONIO DAWSON (TDCJ No. 681033), Petitioner, V. LORIE DAVIS, Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent. § § § § § § § § § § § § No. 3:17-cv-1651-N ORDER The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a recommendation in this case. No objections were filed. The District Court reviewed the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Because the Court lacks jurisdiction over Petitioner’s unauthorized successive application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the application is TRANSFERRED to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for appropriate action. Because the Court is transferring the successive habeas application to the Fifth Circuit for appropriate action, the Court need not address whether Petitioner is entitled to a certificate of appealability (“COA”). See United States v. Fulton, 780 F.3d 1 683, 688 (5th Cir. 2015) (“[A] transfer order under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 is not a final order within the meaning of [28 U.S.C.] § 2253(c)(1)(B), and the appeal of such an order does not require a COA.”); Guel-Rivas v. Stephens, 599 F. App’x 175, 175 (5th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (applying Fulton’s holding to transfer of a successive Section 2254 application). But in the event that Petitioner does file a notice of appeal, the Court notes that he must pay the filing fee or file a motion for leave proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. SO ORDERED this 3rd day of August, 2017. ____________________________________ DAVID C. GODBEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?