Mirola v. Davis-Director TDCJ-CID

Filing 11

Order Accepting 8 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation and Denying Certificate of Appealability. (Ordered by Judge David C Godbey on 9/29/2017) (ndt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
JESUS MIROLA
(TDCJ No. 1935276),
Petitioner,
V.
LORIE DAVIS, Director
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Correctional Institutions Division,
Respondent.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

No. 3:17-cv-1888-N

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
JUDGE AND DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a
recommendation in this case, after which Petitioner filed Motion to Reconsider Stay
and Abate. That motion is properly treated as an objection. The District Court
reviewed de novo those portions of the proposed findings, conclusions, and
recommendation to which objection was made, and reviewed the remaining proposed
findings, conclusions, and recommendation for plain error. Finding no error, the
Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United
States Magistrate Judge.
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 DENIES a certificate of appealability. The Court
1

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 reasonable jurists would find “it debatable whether the petition
[currently] states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right” and “debatable
whether [this Court] was correct in its procedural ruling” – that Petitioner did not
fully and properly exhausted state court remedies prior to filing the 28 U.S.C. § 2254
application. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).1 In the event that Petitioner
will file a notice of appeal, the Court notes that he shall either pay the appellate filing
fee of $505.00 or move for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
SO ORDERED this 29th day of September, 2017.

____________________________________
DAVID C. GODBEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Rule 11 of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 Cases, as amended effective on
December 1, 2009, reads as follows:
1

(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