Wallace v. Davis

Filing 23

ORDER. To the extent 20 First Motion and 21 Second Motion were intended as either a motion for new trial or motion for relief under Rule 60, the motions are denied. Petitioner has 21 days to show cause as to why his Notice of Appeal should be deemed timely. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(gclair, 4)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
I THE UN I
N
TED STA TES D I
STRI COU RT
CT
FOR THE SOU TH ERN D I
STRI OF TEX AS
CT
HOU STON D I SI
VI ON

June 14, 2018
David J. Bradley, Clerk

FRED DI LEE W ALLA CE,
E
Pettoner
ii ,
CI L ACTI N O .1 -1 311
VI
ON
1 7- 9

LORI DA VI
E
S,
Res
pondent
.
O R DER

Pe ng bef e t Cour a e pe ii
ndi
or he
t r ttoner st opro se m otons ûM oton Reques t
' w
i ,s i
to

f r gfl t Pe mison t Pr e d i Thi Co r o a De i g /l Ap a Fr m a
o -c he r s i o oc e n s u t n n rt -c pe l o
s
ç
J gme ' (he i rtM o i n ' ( c e En r No.20) a d o i n of Ou ofTi
ud nt' t i s to ' Do k t ty
Fi
)
, nd k to
M
t
me
Appe lM e a du o La ' t e ( c d M oton' ( k tEn r No. )
a mor n m f w'(h t on
se
i ' Doc e ty 21 .
)
The Coul ha e r s d ever r onabl ef or t unde s a pettoner s t
' s xe ci e
t
y eas
e f to
r t nd
ii ' wo

m otons but i i unabl t de e m i t pr ci e nat e of t r i bei r
i ,
ts
e o t r ne he e s
ur
he elef ng equesed.
t
The Cour di m i s pe ii r' habeas petton as bar ed by lm ia i on Aprl23,
t s s ed ttone s
ii
r
i t tons
i
201 Pettoner fl t pe ng m otons no eari r t J
8.
ii
ied he ndi
i
le han une 4,2018,a t w e e
nd hey r
docke ed on J
t
une 1 201 Pettone doesnotsat t the se ved copi oft m otons
2, 8. ii r
t e ha
r
es he
i
on couns f r pondent
el or es
.

TheClr o Co td k td t Fis M oto a ano ie ofa a . Rul 3 c ( )
e k f ur oc e e he r t in s tc
ppe l
e ()1
oft Feder Rul ofA ppelat Pr dur r r t t a notce of a
he
al es
l e oce e equie ha
i
ppeals ciy t
pe f he

pat a a i ,d sg t t o d ro j g ntbe n a ae a na t c u tt
ry ppe lng e i nae he r e r ud me i g ppe ld, nd me he o r o
w hi h t a
c he ppeali t n. The Cour not t tpe ii
s ake
t es ha ttoneri t a
s he ppea i pary,a w il
lng t nd l

pr um e t he i a
es
hat s ppea i t s Cour ' dim i s lofhi habea pe ii How e ,t
lng hi
ts s s a
s
s tton.
ver he
Cour ca
t nnot pr s e t pe ii
e um hat ttoner i ended t appeal t t Fi t Cic t Cour of
nt
o
o he fh r ui
t
A ppeal,as no r e e
s
ef r nce i m ade t t c t To t contar pettoner a
s
o hat our .
he
r y, ii
ppear t
s o

a gue t t sCour s d r i t e hi habe cl m sand r e on t rm ert eiher#c
r
hat hi
t houl e ns at s
as ai
ul
hei
is t

nov oras a diec a al N eve t es ,gi a lbe alconsr i pe ii ' m oton
o
r t ppe .
rhel s ven i r
t ucton, ttoners
i
c be s a r
an
een s equesi an a alofhi habe pr eedi t t nexthi
tng
ppe
s
as oc ngs o he
gherc t
our .
l hi Sec
n s
ond M oton,pettoner appea s t as t s Cour t hol hi f r
i
ii
r o k hi
to
d s ede al

habeas petton tm el fl d a t r vi w t sat coul pr eedi on a de novo or
ii i y ie nd o e e he t e
' oc ngs
t
diec appealbass. As bef e,no m e i i m ade of a appeal t t Fi Cic t
r t
i
or
nton s
n
o he hh r ui
Cour ofAppea s a no r
t
l , nd
eques and s
t
uppor i f sf an ext i oftm e t fl a
tng act or
enson
i o ie n
a
ppealt t t cour a e pr ent H ow e r a lbe a consr ton oft m oton w oul
o ha
t r es ed.
ve , i r l
tuc i
he
i
d
a ns
gai ugges t pettoneri s ki a appealofhi cl m st t ne hi
t hat ii
s ee ng n
s ai o he xt gherc t
our .
Cons
equenty,i i e iel uncl arwhe he pettoneri ended t e t o m otons
l t s ntr y
e
t r ii
nt
hes w
i

t consiut a m oton f new ti a m e or ndum of l w , or a adual notce of
o
tt e
i or
r al nd m a
a
n
i
a
ppealt t Fi t Cicui Cour ofAppeal wih a r
o he fh r t
t
s t eques t hol t notcetm el fl
t o d he i i y ied.

l t itrssof u tc a fin s,t Co r wil o tuep tto rsFis Moto a
n he nee t j sie nd ar e s he u t lc nsr eiine ' rt in s
ano ie ofa pe lt t Fit Cic tCo tofAppe s( c tEnty No.20 ,a hi
tc
p a o he fh r ui ur
al Do ke r
) nd s
Se o M o i n a ar q e tt thi no i eofa pe lbe he d tmey fld ( c e Enty
c nd to s e u s ha s tc
p a
l i l ie Do k t r
No.21 . l lg t of t e c re t r c r i t s c s ,pe ii rs no ie of a e li
) n ih
h u r n e o d n hi a e ttone ' tc
pp a s

un i l,a d hep e e t no f c u la lgai nswa r n i g r le u rRuls4 a ( )A)
tmey n
r s n s a t a le to
ra tn ei f nde e ( ) 5 (
o ( )6)o t Fe e a Ru e ofApp laePr c d r .
r a ( f he d r l l s
e lt o e u e

Fort e r as ,t Coul O RD ER S as f l s
hes e ons he
'
t
olow :

()
1

Pe ii e ' Fis M o in ( ke Enty No.20)i DEEM ED ano ie o
tton rs rt to Doc t r
s
tc f
a
ppea t t Fit Cicui Cour ofA ppeal,appealng t Cour ' or
l o he fh r t
t
s
i he
ts der

a dj gme tofAp i23, 0l .
n ud n
rl 2 8
(
2)

Pe ii e ' Se on M oto ( c tEn r No.21 i DEEM ED a r q s
tton rs c d
in Do ke ty
)s
e ue t
t hol t notce ofappcaltm el fl
o d he i
i y ied.

(
3)

Pe ii ne i O RDERED TO SHOW CAUSE,b wrte r s ns fld
tto r s
y i n e po e ie
t
wihi t e y- days f om da e of t s or ,w hy hi notce of a
t n w nt one
r
t
hi der
s i
ppeal

s ul bede me tmey fl dpu s ntt Rul s4( ) 5 ( o ( )6)oft
ho d
e d i l ie r ua o e a ( )A) r a (
he
Feder lRul ofAppela e Pr
a
es
lt ocedur
e.

(
4)

l pe ii ne d d no i t n t tl a no i e o a a t t e Fit Cic i
f tto r i t n e d o 5e
tc f ppe l o h fh r u t
Cour of Appe s i t s c e,he m us advi e t s Cour i wrtng wihi
t
al n hi as
t
s hi
t n ii
t n
ffee da f om dat oft sor .
i t n ys r
e hi der

()
5

To a y e t n pe ii ne ' mo i nswe e i e d a a mo i n f rne til
n x e t tto rs to
r ntnde s
to o w ra
under Rul 59 of t Fe al Rul of Ci l Pr edur t m oton i
e
he der
es
vi oc
e, he
i s
DENI asuntm el
ED
i y.

()
6

To a e e t p tto rs mo i ns we e i t n d a a m o i f r r le
ny xtn e ii ne ' to
r n e de s
ton o e if
under Rul 60 of t Fede al Rul of Ci l Pr
e
he
r
es
vi ocedur t m oton i
e, he
i s
DENI
ED f t r ons s f 'h i t Cour ' dim is or r ofApr l
or he eas
et ol n he
t
ts s s al de
i
23,2018.

N

sg e aHo so , ea,ntite //dyo Jn , 0 8
ind t utn T xso hsh
a f u e2 l.

*

K EI P. LLI
TH
SON
UN I
TED STA TES D I
STRI J DG E
CT U

3