Canales v. Davis
ORDER ADOPTING 33 MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATIONS and granting re: 15 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus 1 is DENIED. A certificate of appealability is GRANTED only as described in this Order.(Signed by Judge David S Morales) Parties notified.(arodriguez, 2)
Case 2:19-cv-00330 Document 51 Filed on 01/07/21 in TXSD Page 1 of 2
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
VICTOR HUGO CANALES; aka
January 07, 2021
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-CV-330
ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Julie Hampton’s Memorandum and
Recommendation (M&R). (D.E. 33). The M&R recommends that the Court grant
Respondent’s motion for summary judgment (D.E. 15) and dismiss Petitioner’s petition for
writ of habeas corpus (D.E. 1). However, the M&R recommends that the Court grant
Petitioner a certificate of appealability. (D.E. 33, p. 2); see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).
The parties were provided proper notice of, and the opportunity to object to, the
Magistrate Judge’s M&R. See U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED R. CIV. P. 72(b); General Order No.
2002-13. Petitioner timely filed objections to the M&R. (D.E. 44).1 Having carefully
reviewed the proposed findings and conclusions of the M&R, the record, the applicable
law, and having made a de novo review of the portions of the M&R to which Petitioner’s
Petitioner also filed a premature motion for a certificate of appealability in Docket Entry 45. The
Magistrate Judge terminated the premature motion, as the district court had not yet ruled on the
M&R at that time, and indicated that the filing should be construed as objections to the Magistrate
Judge’s recommendation to grant a certificate of appealability on only a single issue. (D.E. 47).
Accordingly, the Court has considered Docket Entry 45 as objections to the M&R (D.E. 33) and
overrules those objections to the extent they are contrary to the M&R’s recommendation.
Case 2:19-cv-00330 Document 51 Filed on 01/07/21 in TXSD Page 2 of 2
objections were directed, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the court OVERRULES Petitioner’s
objections. (D.E. 44).
Accordingly, the Court:
(1) ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety. (D.E. 33).
(2) Respondent’s motion for summary judgment (D.E. 15) is GRANTED.
(3) Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. (D.E. 1).
(4) A certificate of appealability is GRANTED only as to the following issue: Whether
the state court’s denial of Petitioner’s ineffective-assistance claim was contrary to,
or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law where counsel
failed to object or seek a curative instruction to the state’s questioning about the
details of Petitioner’s prior drug conviction. See (D.E. 33, p. 23).2
DAVID S. MORALES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: Corpus Christi, Texas
January 7, 2021
Petitioner also prematurely filed a notice of appeal (D.E. 46), apparently appealing the M&R
before the district court had ruled on it, and before any certificate of appealability had been granted
as to any issue in this habeas corpus action. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). Petitioner’s notice of appeal
is considered timely as of the date of this order. See FED. R. APP. P. 3(a), 4(a)(1)(A).
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?