Jackson v. The State of Texas
Filing
3
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER dismissing without prejudice 1 Motion for Relief from Judgment. A Certificate Appealability is denied. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (aboyd, 4)
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
SAMUEL ROY JACKSON,
TDCJ #1268721,
Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF TEXAS,
Respondent.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
June 10, 2016
David J. Bradley, Clerk
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-16-1580
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The petitioner, Samuel Roy Jackson (TDCJ #1268721), has filed
a
"Motion
for
Rule 60(b) (4)
Relief
from
Final
Judgment
Pursuant
to
Federal
Void Judgment and Void Court Order Rendered Under
Aggravated Robbery Cause No. : 913043" ("Motion for Relief") (Docket
Entry No. 1).
Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
does not apply to judgments entered by a
state court.
To the
extent that Jackson seeks relief from a state court judgment of
conviction, his Motion for Relief is construed as a Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C.
custody
No. 2.
("Petition").
§
2254 by a person in state
See Notice of Case Filing,
Docket Entry
After considering the pleadings and the applicable law, the
court will dismiss this action for the reasons explained below.
I.
Background
Jackson is currently incarcerated in the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice - Correctional Institutions Division ("TDCJ") as
the result of a conviction in Harris County cause number 913043.
A jury in
the
183rd District
Court
for
Harris
County,
Texas,
convicted Jackson of aggravated robbery, and he was sentenced to 35
years in prison.
See Jackson v. State, No.
01-04-01137-CR, 2005
WL 3072018
App.
Nov.
withdrawn) .
(Tex.
-
Hous.
[1st Dist.]
17,
2005,
pet.
The conviction was affirmed on direct appeal in an
unpublished opinion.
On April 21,
See id.
2016,
Jackson executed the pending Petition,
arguing that he is entitled to relief from his conviction in cause
number 913043. 1
Jackson alleges that the indictment against him in
cause number 913043 was "defective" and insufficient to vest the
trial court with subject matter jurisdiction. 2
Arguing that the
trial court's judgment of conviction is "void," Jackson contends
that he is entitled to immediate release from custody. 3
Court
records
confirm
that
Jackson
has
filed
a
previous
federal habeas corpus petition challenging the same conviction in
cause number 913043.
The district court dismissed that petition
with prejudice as barred by the governing statute of limitations.
See Jackson v. Quarterman, Civil No. H-08-443
2009).
(S.D. Tex. June 1,
Jackson's appeal from that decision was dismissed for lack
of jurisdiction after he failed to file a timely notice of appeal.
1
Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 19.
2
Id. at 2.
3
Id. at 19.
-2-
See Jackson v. Thaler, 395 F. App'x 142, 2010 WL 3680903 (5th Cir.
Sept. 15, 2010).
Jackson has filed two other federal habeas corpus actions to
challenge his conviction in cause number 913043.
Those actions
were dismissed as successive applications that were filed without
obtaining prior authorization from the Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit
as
required by
28
U.S.C.
2244 (b) (3} (A}.
§
See
Jackson v. Thaler, Civil No. H-11-3504 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 28, 2011};
Jackson v. Thaler, Civil No. H-14-750 (S.D. Tex. March 31, 2014).
Jackson did not pursue an appeal in those cases.
II.
Discussion
This case is governed by the Anti-Terrorism and Effective
Death Penalty Act (the "AEDPA"}, codified as amended at 28 U.S.C.
§
2244(b} (3), which imposes restrictions on the filing of "second
or successive" applications for habeas relief.
Before a second or
successive application permitted by this section may be filed in
the district court the applicant must move in the appropriate court
of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider
the application.
See 28 U.S.C.
§
2244(b) (3) (A).
To the extent
that the pending Petition qualifies as a successive writ, the court
has no jurisdiction to consider it absent prior authorization from
the Court of Appeals.
The
Fifth
Circuit
has
recognized
that
"a
prisoner's
application is not second or successive simply because it follows
-3-
an earlier federal petition."
Cir.
1998).
In re Cain, 137 F.3d 234, 235 (5th
A subsequent application is "second or successive"
when it ( 1) "raises a claim challenging the petitioner's conviction
or sentence
petition" or
that was or could have been raised in an earlier
( 2)
"otherwise constitutes an abuse of the writ."
Id.; see also United States v. Orozco-Ramirez, 211 F.3d 862, 867
(5th Cir. 2000).
Jackson's claim that the trial court's judgment
of conviction was void for lack of jurisdiction has been raised and
rejected previously. 4
Thus, the pending Petition meets the second-
or-successive criteria. 5
The issue of whether a habeas corpus petition is successive
may be raised by the district court sua sponte.
Johnson,
104 F.3d 694, 697
(5th Cir. 1997).
See Rodriguez v.
Because the pending
Petition is successive, Jackson is required to seek authorization
from
the
Court
application.
of Appeals
See 28 U.S.C.
before
§
this
court
2244 (b) (3) (A).
can consider his
"Indeed, the purpose
4
See Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State
Custody, Docket Entry No. 1 in Civil No. H-08-443, p. 7. See also
"Pro Se Litigant's Independant Action to Set Aside Judgement
Pursuant to Cause #913043 Federal Rule 60(b) Subdivision Procedure
Remedy Provision Note," Docket Entry No. 72 in Civil No. H-08-443.
5
Because this is the fourth federal habeas action filed by
Jackson to challenge his conviction in cause number 913043, the
pending Petition also qualifies as an abuse of the writ.
See,
~'
Sanders v. United States, 83 S. Ct. 1068, 1078 (1963)
("Nothing in the traditions of habeas corpus requires the federal
courts to tolerate needless piecemeal litigation [or] to entertain
collateral proceedings whose only purpose is to vex, harass, or
delay.") .
-4-
of [28 U.S.C.
§
2244(b)] was to eliminate the need for the district
courts to repeatedly consider challenges to the same conviction
unless an appellate panel first found that those challenges had
some merit."
2000)
Key,
United States v.
(citing In re Cain,
205 F.3d 773,
this court lacks
Accordingly,
(5th Cir.
Jackson has not
137 F.3d at 235).
presented the requisite authorization.
774
Absent such authorization
Id.
jurisdiction over the Petition.
to the extent that Jackson seeks
relief
at 775.
from his
conviction in Harris County cause number 913043 the Petition will
be dismissed as an unauthorized successive writ.
III.
Certificate of Appealability
Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases now requires
a district court to issue or deny a certificate of appealability
when entering a final order that is adverse to the petitioner.
A
certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner
makes •a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right,"
28 U.S.C.
demonstrate
•that
§
2253 (c)
(2),
reasonable
would
Tennard v. Dretke, 124 S. Ct. 2562, 2565 (2004)
controlling standard this
Ct.
1595,
requires
a
1604
claims
the
wrong."
120 S.
constitutional
find
assessment
McDaniel,
the
jurists
court's
Slack v.
of
which requires a petitioner to
district
debatable
(2000)).
petitioner to
or
(quoting
Under the
show
•that
reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree
-5-
that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner
or
that
the
issues
presented
were
encouragement to proceed further.'"
Where
denial
of
relief
is
'adequate
to
deserve
Miller-El, 123 S. Ct. at 1039.
based
on
procedural
grounds
the
petitioner must show not only that "jurists of reason would find it
debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial
of a
constitutional right,"
but also that
they
"would find it
debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural
ruling."
Slack, 120 S. Ct. at 1604.
A district court may deny a
certificate of appealability,
sua sponte, without requiring further briefing or argument.
See
Alexander v.
For
reasons
set
Johnson,
211 F.3d 895,
forth above,
this
898
(5th Cir.
court concludes
that
2000).
jurists of
reason would not debate whether any procedural ruling in this case
was correct or whether the Petition in this case qualifies as a
second or successive application.
Therefore,
a
certificate of
appealability will not issue.
IV.
Conclusion and Order
Based on the foregoing, the court ORDERS as follows:
1.
The Motion for Relief from Final Judgment Pursuant
to Federal Rule 60 (b) ( 4) Void Judgment and Void
Court Order Rendered Under Aggravated Robbery Cause
No. : 913 04 3 filed by Samuel Roy Jackson (Docket
Entry No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for
lack of jurisdiction as an unauthorized successive
application.
-6-
2.
A certificate of appealability is DENIED.
The Clerk shall provide a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and
Order to the parties.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this the 9th day of June, 2016.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-7-
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?