Joseph v. Director, TDCJ-CID

Filing 9

ORDER ACCEPTING 4 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE: 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. § 2253(c), the court DENIES a certificate of appealability. (Ordered by Senior Judge A. Joe Fish on 1/7/2025) (twd)

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

CLARENCE JOSEPH,
#02435611,
Petitioner,
VS.
DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
3:24-CV-2396-G-BN

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a
recommendation in this case. Petitioner filed objections. The District Court
reviewed those parts of the findings, conclusions, and recommendation to which the
petitioner objected de novo. Finding no error, the court ACCEPTS the findings,
conclusions, and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge.1
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

1

Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (docket entry 6) and
motion in the alternative dismissal of ground three (docket entry 8) are DENIED as
moot.

proceedings, and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), the court DENIES a certificate of
appealability. The court adopts and incorporates by reference the magistrate judge’s
findings, conclusions, and recommendation filed in this case in support of its finding
that the 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).2
But, if Petitioner elects to file a notice of appeal, he must either pay the
$605.00 appellate filing fee or move for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.

2

Rule 11 of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 Cases, as amended
effective on December 1, 2009, reads 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.
-2-

SO ORDERED.
January 7, 2025.

___________________________________
A. JOE FISH
Senior United States District Judge

-3-