Canales v. Johnson

Filing 108

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND THE JUDGMENT AND MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT; denying 100 Motion to Correct; denying 106 Motion for Relief from Judgment.(Signed by Judge Hayden Head) Parties notified.(lcayce, ) (Main Document 108 replaced on 3/1/2013) (ssyler, ).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

JAVIER OCHOA CANALES,
Petitioner,
v.
RICK THALER, Director, TDCJ-CID,
Respondent.

§
§
§
§
§
§

Case No.: 00-cv-396

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO
ALTER OR AMEND THE JUDGMENT AND MOTION
FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT

Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s motion to alter or amend the judgment (D.E. 100,
101) and Petitioner’s fifth motion for relief from judgment (D.E. 106). All requested relief is
DENIED.
On May 7, 2012, United States Magistrate Judge B. Janice Ellington filed a Memorandum
and Recommendation, recommending Petitioner’s motion to alter or amend the judgment (D.E. 100,
101) be denied. (D.E. 103). Judge Ellington also recommended that any request for a certificate of
appealability be denied. (D.E. 103). Petitioner filed an objection on August 22, 2012. (D.E. 105).
Having reviewed de novo the Memorandum and Recommendation and the pleadings on file, this
Court hereby adopts as its own the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly,
Petitioner’s motion to alter or amend the judgment (D.E. 100, 101) is denied. Any request for a
certificate of appealability is denied.
On January 11, 2013, Petitioner filed a fifth motion for relief from judgment. (D.E. 106).
Petitioner’s original habeas corpus petition and his subsequent motions for relief from judgment

have been denied. (D.E. 36, 37, 42, 43, 51, 59, 69, 71, 76, 95, 96, 99). Petitioner’s third and fourth
motions for relief from judgment were denied as second or successive habeas corpus petitions. (D.E.
71, 96). Petitioner’s pending fifth motion for relief from judgment mirrors his third and fourth
unsuccessful motions for relief from judgment. (D.E. 106). Petitioner has not shown proper
authorization to file a further second or successive habeas application. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).
In fact, the Fifth Circuit previously noted Petitioner’s numerous habeas pleadings related to the same
conviction and warned that “filing additional meritless items challenging his 1994 conviction could
result [ ] in the imposition of sanctions which could include, but are not limited to, monetary
sanctions and restrictions on his ability to file pleadings in this court and any court subject to this
court’s jurisdiction.” (D.E. 91). Accordingly, Petitioner’s fifth motion for relief from judgment
(D.E. 106) is denied. Petitioner shall not file another motion for relief from judgment without the
permission of the Chief Judge of the Fifth Circuit.

ORDERED this 28th day of February, 2013.

____________________________________
HAYDEN HEAD
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2