Billingslea v. Director, TDCJ-CID
Filing
22
Order Accepting Findings and Recommendations and Denying Certificate of Appealability. The court certifies that any appeal of this action would not be taken in good faith. re: 13 Findings and Recommendations on Case re: 3 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,, filed by Darrell Billingslea. (Ordered by Judge Sam A. Lindsay on 7/29/2022) (svc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
DARRELL BILLINGSLEA,
Petitioner,
v.
DIRECTOR, Texas Department of
Criminal Justice, Correctional
Institutions Division,
Respondent.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-999-L-BH
ORDER
On June 16, 2022, the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States
Magistrate Judge (“Report”) (Doc. 13) was entered, recommending that the court dismiss with
prejudice this habeas action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 as barred by the applicable
statute of limitations. Subsequently, Petitioner filed four documents (Docs. 14, 16, 17, 19). To the
extent these documents were filed for purposes of objecting to the Report, the objections are
overruled, as nothing in these documents addresses or affects the magistrate judge’s basis for
concluding that this habeas action is time-barred.
Having considered Petitioner’s habeas petition (Doc. 3), the file, record in this case, and
Report, and having conduced a de novo review of that portion of the Report to which objection
was made, 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 habeas
petition (Doc. 3) and dismisses with prejudice this action as time-barred.
Further, 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.
Order – Page 1
§ 2253(c), 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 filed
in this case. In the event that a notice of appeal is filed, Petitioner must pay the $505 appellate
filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
It is so ordered this 29th day of July, 2022.
_________________________________
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
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?