Allen v. Stephens

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. MOTION/APPLICATION to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 2 is GRANTED. Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. A Certificate of Appealability is DENIED. (Signed by Judge Vanessa D Gilmore) Parties notified.(amwilliams, 4)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
§
ROBERT LAMARR ALLEN,
§
(TDCJ-CID #636644)
§
§
Petitioner,
§
§
VS.
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. H-14-2979
§
WILLIAM STEPHENS,
§
§
Respondent.
§

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION

Petitioner, Robert Lamarr Allen, seeks habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The
threshold issue is whether this petition is subject to dismissal as successive. For the reasons
discussed below, the court finds that this petition should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

I.

Background
Allen challenges a conviction for aggravated robbery in the 262nd Judicial District Court of

Harris County, Texas. (Cause Number 600372). On November 28, 1995, Allen filed a federal
petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Civil Action Number 4:95-5392, collaterally attacking his
conviction for aggravated robbery. On September 19, 1996, this court denied Allen's claims on the
merits.
In the instant federal petition filed on October 20, 2014, Allen challenges the same conviction
for aggravated robbery. (Docket Entry No.1, Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, p. 2).

O:\RAO\VDG\201..J.\I-\.-297IJ aOt..wpd

II.

Discussion
The issue of whether a habeas corpus petition is successive may be raised by the district court

sua sponte. Rodriguez v. Johnson. 104 FJd 694, 697 (5th Cir. 1997). This court lacks jurisdiction
to consider Allen's petition as it is a "successive" application governed by the amendments to the
AEDP A requiring that the Fifth Circuit authorize the district court to consider the application before
it is filed in the district court.
Title 28 U. S. C. § 2244(b)(3)( A) (1998) provides, "Before a second or successive application
permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court
of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application." There is no
indication on the record that the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has authorized
this court to consider Allen's successive application, and therefore, this court lacks jurisdiction to
consider Allen's habeas claims.l
Construed liberally, Allen contends that his federal petition is not barred by limitations or
successive because the Supreme Court's decision in Martinez v. Ryan, -

U.S. - - , 132 S. Ct.

1309 (2012), created a new rule that applies retroactively for purposes of section 2244( d)( 1)( C).
However, Martinez does not present a new rule of constitutional law under section 2244(d)(1)(C).
See Adams v. Thaler, 679 F.3d 312, 323 n.6 (5th Cir. 2012) (noting, in the context ofa successive
habeas application, that Martinez "was an 'equitable ruling' that did not establish 'a new rule of

1When a civil action is filed in a court and that court finds that there is a want of jurisdiction, the
court shall transfer the action to any other court in which the action could have been brought at the time it
was filed. 28 U .S.C. § 1631. The action shall proceed as if it had been filed in the court to which it is
transferred on the date upon which it was actually filed in the court from which it was transferred. ld
From Allen's litigation history, the court determines that Allen is capable ofrefiling this suit in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

O,\RAO\VDG\201~\14"2979.aOl

wpd

2

constitutional law. "'); Arthur v. Thomas, 739 F.3d 611,629 (lith Cir. 2014) (noting, in the context
of the AEDPA's one-year limitations period, that "[t]he Martinez rule is not a constitutional rule but
an equitable principle."). Moreover, Martinez relates only to the issue of cause to excuse a
procedural default of an ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim and, thus, does not apply to the
AEDPA's statute of limitations at issue in this case. See Arthur, 739 F.3d at 630-631. The court
concludes section 2244(d)(1)(C) is inapplicable here.

III.

Conclusion
Allen's petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DISMISSED for lack

of jurisdiction. Allen's motion to proceed informa pauperis, (Docket Entry No.2), is GRANTED.
All remaining pending motions are DENIED as moot.
The showing necessary for a Certificate of Appealability is a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right. Hernandez v. Johnson, 213 F .3d 243,248 (5th Cir. 2000)(citing Slack
v. McDaniel, 429 U.S. 473, 483 (2000». An applicant makes a substantial showing when he

demonstrates that his application involves issues that are debatable among jurists of reason, that
another court could resolve the issues differently, or that the issues are suitable enough to deserve
encouragement to proceed further. See Clark v. Johnson, 202 F.3d 760, 763 (5th Cir. 2000).
When the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the
prisoner's underlying constitutional claim, a COA should issue when the prisoner shows, at least,
that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial
of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court
was correct in its procedural ruling. Ruddv. Johnson, 256 F.3d 317,319 (5th Cir. 2001)(citing

O:\RAO\VDG\2014\l..j.-2979.aOl.wpd

3

Slack, 529 U.S. at 484). Allen has not made the necessary showing. Accordingly, a certificate of

appealability is DENIED.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on

OdJer- J-1,

2014.

VANESSA D. GILMORE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

O:\RAO\vOG\20 14\14-2979 aO I \vpd

4