Rubio v. Johnson et al

Filing 5

Order Accepting #4 Findings and Recommendations and Denying Certificate of Appealability re: #3 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Ace Rubio, and dismissing out prejudice this action as premature. (Ordered by Judge Sam A. Lindsay on 3/31/2021) (chmb)

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

ACE RUBIO,
Petitioner,
v.
TRENESHA JOHNSON and JOHN
CREUZOT,
Respondents.

'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'

Civil Action No. 3:21-CV-556-L-BN

ORDER
The Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge
(“Report”) (Doc. 4) was entered on March 12, 2021. The Report recommends that court deny
Petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Motion”) (Doc. 3) and
dismiss without prejudice this habeas action as premature. No objections to the Report were filed
as of the date of this order, and the time to do so has passed.
Having considered Petitioner’s Motion (Doc. 3), the 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 Petitioner’s Motion (Doc. 3) and
dismisses without prejudice this action as premature.
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),

Order - Page 1

the court denies a certificate of appealability. * The court determines that 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). In support of this
determination, the court accepts and incorporates by reference the Report. 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 on appeal.
It is so ordered this 31st day of March, 2021.

_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge

*

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
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