Bradley v. Thaler, Director TDCJ-CID
Filing
17
ORDER ADOPTING 15 Findings and Recommendations, re: 15 Findings and Recommendations on Case re: 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,,,, filed by Julie Lorraine Bradley. Magistrate Judge Jeffrey L Cureton no longer assigned to case.Findings a nd Recommendations on Case re: 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,,,, filed by Julie Lorraine Bradley. Magistrate Judge Jeffrey L Cureton no longer assigned to case. A Certificate of Appealability should not issue. (Ordered by Judge Terry R Means on 6/20/2012) (wrb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
JULIE LORRAINE BRADLEY,
VS.
RICK THALER,
Director, T.D.C.J.
Correctional Institutions Div.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO.4:10-CV-681-Y
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
AND ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
In this action brought by petitioner Julie Lorraine Bradley
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the Court has made an independent review of
the following matters in the above-styled and numbered cause:
1.
The pleadings and record;
2.
The proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation of
the United States magistrate judge filed on December 7,
2011; and
3.
The petitioner's written objections to the proposed
findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United
States magistrate judge filed on December 13, 2011.
The Court, after de novo review, concludes that Petitioner’s
objections must be overruled, and that the petition for writ of
habeas corpus should be denied for the reasons stated in the
magistrate judge's findings and conclusions, and for the reasons
stated in the Respondent’s answer at sections II(A) through (E).
Petitioner Bradley continues to argue in her objections that
she is entitled to an evidentiary hearing.
But the recent Supreme
Court case Cullen v. Pinholster1 made clear that federal habeas
review under the deferential 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) standard
applicable to claims adjudicated on the merits in state-court
1
131 S. Ct. 1388 (2011).
proceedings is limited to the record before the state court.2 The
Court explained:
We now hold that review under § 2254(d)(1) is limited to
the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits. Section 2254(d)(1) refers,
in the past tense, to a state-court adjudication that
“resulted in” a decision that was contrary to, or
“involved” an unreasonable application of the state-court
decision at the time it was made. It follows that the
record under review is limited to the record in existence
at that same time i.e., the record before the state
court.3
This is true even where there has been a summary denial in the
state court.4
As all of Petitioner’s claims were adjudicated on
the merits in state court, review under § 2254(d)(1) is limited to
the record before the state court. Bradley is not entitled to an
evidentiary hearing.
Therefore, the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of
the magistrate judge are ADOPTED.
Petitioner Julie Lorraine Bradley’s petition for writ of
habeas corpus is DENIED.
Certificate of Appealability
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22 provides that an
appeal may not proceed unless a certificate of appealability (COA)
is issued under 28 U.S.C. § 2253.5 Rule 11 of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Proceedings now requires that the Court “must issue or
deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order
2
Cullen, 131 S.Ct. at 1398-1400.
3
Id at 1398.
4
Id at 1402.
5
See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).
2
adverse to the applicant.”6 The COA may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”7 A petitioner satisfies this standard by showing
“that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s
resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists of reason
could
conclude
the
issues
presented
are
adequate
to
deserve
encouragement to proceed further.”8
Upon review and consideration of the record in the abovereferenced case as to whether petitioner Bradley has made a showing
that reasonable jurists would question this Court’s rulings, the
Court determines he has not and that a certificate of appealability
should not issue for the reasons stated in the December 7, 2011
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States
Magistrate Judge, and for the reasons stated in this order.9
Therefore, a certificate of appealability should not issue.
SIGNED June 20, 2012.
____________________________
TERRY R. MEANS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
RULES GOVERNING SECTION 2254 PROCEEDINGS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS, RULE
11(a) (December 1, 2009).
7
28 U.S.C.A. § 2253(c)(2)(West 2006).
8
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 326 (2003), citing Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
9
See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); see also 28 U.S.C.A. § 2253(c)(2)(West 2006).
3
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?