Foley v. Davis
Filing
5
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION granting 3 MOTION/APPLICATION to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice as a successive petition. A Certificate of Appealability is DENIED. All other pending motions, if any, are DENIED. (Signed by Judge Melinda Harmon) Parties notified.(jdav, 4)
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
ROY ANTHONY FOLEY,
Petitioner,
VS.
LORIE DAVIS,
Respondent.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
November 04, 2016
David J. Bradley, Clerk
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-16-3185
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Petitioner Roy Anthony Foley, a state prisoner, has filed this federal petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, again seeking relief from a state court conviction
and sentence. (Docket Entry No. 1). After a review of court records, the Court concludes that
the petition must be dismissed as successive.
I.
Successive Petition
Court records indicate that petitioner has filed at least one prior petition for habeas corpus
relief of his 2003 conviction for burglary in cause number 02-05-03563 in the 284th Judicial
District Court of Montgomery County, Texas. See Foley v. Quarterman, Civ. A. No. 4:07-cv384 (S.D. Tex. 2007) (dismissing the petition on the merits as time-barred under 28 U.S.C.
§2244(d)).
To the extent that petitioner raises the same claims in the present petition that he
raised in his previous petition, this Court is required to dismiss those claims.
28 U.S.C.
§2244(b)(1). To the extent that petitioner seeks relief on grounds not previously presented, he
fails to allege or show that he has sought or received authorization from the Fifth Circuit to
proceed in this Court with respect to any new claims he is raising. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3).
Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice to petitioner seeking authorization
from the Court of Appeals to proceed in this Court on any new claims.
1/3
II.
Certificate of Appealability
A certificate of appealability from a habeas corpus proceeding will not issue unless the
petitioner makes “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.
§2253(c)(2). This standard “includes showing that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or,
for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that
the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Stated
differently, the petitioner “must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s
assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Id.; Beazley v. Johnson, 242 F.3d
248, 263 (5th Cir. 2001). On the other hand, when denial of relief is based on procedural
grounds, the petitioner must not only show 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.” Beazley, 242
F.3d at 263 (quoting Slack, 529 U.S. at 484); see also Hernandez v. Johnson, 213 F.3d 243, 248
(5th Cir.2000). A district court may deny a certificate of appealability, sua sponte, without
requiring further briefing or argument. Alexander v. Johnson, 211 F.3d 895, 898 (5th Cir. 2000).
For the reasons set forth in the Memorandum and Order on Dismissal, the Court has determined
that petitioner has not made a showing that reasonable jurists could disagree regarding the
Court’s procedural ruling. Therefore, a certificate of appealability from this decision will not
issue.
2/3
III.
Conclusion and Order
Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1.
Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Entry No. 3) is
GRANTED.
2.
This action is DISMISSED without prejudice as a successive petition.
3.
A certificate of appealability is DENIED.
4.
All other pending motions, if any, are DENIED.
The Clerk will enter this Order, providing a correct copy to all parties of record.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, this 3rd day of November, 2016.
___________________________________
MELINDA HARMON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3/3
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?