Patron v. Stephens, Director TDCJ-CID
Filing
18
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER... petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 u.s.c. § 2254 be, and is hereby, dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction... for the reasons discussed herein, the court further ORDERS that a certificate of appealability be, and is hereby, denied. See Order for further specifics. (Ordered by Judge John McBryde on 7/18/2014) (krg)
T:;'.
COURTr-!-~-::L.~:.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
'
----,
\
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF .TEXAS .: JUL f 9ftl.l
8
FORT WORTH DIVISION
'
L_____ _'~
JOE PATRON,
C'! ~RK, U.S. DrsT2:·~~-i
§
Petitioner,
.
------- ----
§
'f\
§
§
v.
§
No. 4:14-CV-007-A
§
WILLIAM STEPHENS, Director,
Texas Department of Criminal
Justice, Correctional
Institutions Division,
§
§
§
§
§
Respondent.
§
MEMORANDUM OPINION
and
ORDER
This is a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C.
§
2254 filed by petitioner, Joe Patron, a state prisoner
confined in the Correctional Institutions Division of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), against William Stephens,
Director of TDCJ.
After having considered the petition and
relief sought by petitioner, the court has concluded that the
petition should be dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
I.
Factual and Procedural History
Petitioner is serving a life sentence on his 2003 conviction
for aggravated sexual assault of a child under 14 years of age in
Tarrant County, Texas, Case No. 0859378R.
J. on Jury Verdict 73,
Ex parte Patron, No. WR-65,544-01, ECF No. 15-1.
In the instant
petition, petitioner asserts he is challenging his 2003
conviction or sentence, however in correspondence filed with the
clerk of court on January 21, 2014, petitioner explicitly states
that he is not challenging his 2003 conviction but, instead, is
challenging his 1994 Tarrant County conviction for felony DWI
that was used to enhancement his current sentence. 1
Correspondence, ECF No. 6; J. on Plea of Guilty 25, Ex parte
Patron, No. WR-65,544-02, ECF No. 15-2.
Petitioner claims that
he is actually innocent of being a habitual offender because his
1994 "misdemeanor" DWI conviction, for which he received a 6month sentence, was used for sentence enhancement in violation of
the Ex Post Facto Clause. 2
II.
Pet. 6, ECF No. 1.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Respondent, who construed the petition as challenging
petitioner's 2003 conviction and sentence, asserts the petition
1
Petitioner has challenged his 2003 conviction in previous
habeas petitions filed in this court.
See Patron v. Quarterman,
No. 4:09-CV-082-Y; Patron v. Quarterman, 4:08-CV-060-Y; Patron v.
Quarterman, 4:06-CV-724-A.
2
Petitioner's claim that his 1994 DWI conviction was a
misdemeanor offense is factually incorrect.
State's Resp. to
Appl. for Writ of Habeas Corpus 23-23A & J. on Plea of Guilty 25,
Ex parte Patron, No. WR-65,544-02, ECF No. 15-2.
2
is untimely and should be dismissed under the federal statute of
limitations.
Resp't's Prel. Resp 3-6, ECF No. 16.
However, as a
preliminary matter, this court has the duty to assure that it has
jurisdiction over the matters before it.
See Burge v. Parish of
St. Tammany, 187 F.3d 452, 465-66 (5th Cir. 1999); MCG, Inc. v.
Great W. Energy Corp., 896 F.2d 170, 173 (5th Cir. 1990).
Generally, for this court to have subject matter
jurisdiction over a claim under
§
2254, the petitioner must be
"in custody" pursuant to the underlying conviction the subject of
the proceeding.
Lackawanna County Dist. Att'y v. Coss, 532 U.S.
394, 394 (2001); Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 492 (1989).
A
federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to entertain a §
2254 action if, at the time the habeas petition is filed, the
prisoner is not "in custody" under the conviction and sentence he
seeks to attack.
Maleng, 490 U.S. at 490-91.
This is true even
if the prior conviction is used to enhance the sentence imposed
for any subsequent crime of which he is convicted.
Id. at 492.
Clearly, petitioner's 6-month sentence for his 1994 DWI
conviction fully expired years ago.
Therefore, he was not in
custody under the 1994 conviction and sentence at the time this
petition was filed, and he may not now challenge the conviction
directly in a
§
2254 petition.
Garlotte v. Fordice, 515 U.S. 39,
3
45 (1995); Maleng, 490 U.S. at 492-93.
For the reasons discussed herein,
The court ORDERS that petitioner's petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28
u.s.c.
§
2254 be, and is hereby,
dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Pursuant to Rule 22(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure, Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases
in the United States District Court, and 28 U.S.C.
§
2253(c), for
the reasons discussed herein, the court further ORDERS that a
certificate of appealability be, and is hereby, denied.
SIGNED July
I~
I
2014.
4
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?