Elliott v. Collins
Filing
4
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 2 APPLICATION to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, dismissing with prejudice 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. A Certificate of Appealability is denied. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (aboyd, 4)
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
November 08, 2017
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
KENDRICK LAVAR ELLIOTT,
SPN #01877025,
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
v.
JUDGE DENISE COLLINS,
Respondent.
David J. Bradley, Clerk
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-17-3338
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The
petitioner,
Kendrick
Lavar
Elliott,
is
currently
in
custody at the Harris County Jail.
Elliott has filed a Petition
for
a
a
Writ
("Petition")
of
Habeas
(Docket
Corpus
Entry
No.
by
1),
Person
in
challenging
without bond by a state court district judge.
State
his
Custody
detention
Elliott has also
submitted an Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees
(Docket Entry No. 2).
After considering all of the pleadings and
the applicable law as required by Rule 4 of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases,
the court concludes that this case must be
dismissed for the reasons explained briefly below.
I.
Background
Elliott is presently in custody at the Harris County Jail
pending criminal charges for failure to register as a sex offender
in cause number 1572703. 1
Elliott contends that he was wrongfully
imprisoned by Judge Denise Collins, who ordered him held without
bond for over a year in connection with another criminal case in
cause number 1499861. 2
That case, which also charged Elliott with
failure to register as a sex offender, was ultimately dismissed on
March 2 9 ,
2 01 7 . 3
Thus,
Elliott appears to contend that he was
wrongfully imprisoned until the end of March 2017.
II.
Discussion
Elliott seeks relief in the form of a federal writ of habeas
corpus.
A writ
of
habeas
corpus
provides
a
remedy
only
for
prisoners who challenge the "fact or duration" of their confinement
and
seek
"immediate
imprisonment."
release
or
a
speedier
release
from
that
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 93 S. Ct. 1827, 1841 (1973).
To state a claim, a habeas petitioner must demonstrate that he is
entitled to release from confinement because he is "in custody in
violation
of
United States."
the
Constitution
28 U.S.C.
§
or
laws
or
treaties
of
the
224l(c).
See Harris County District Clerk's Office website, located
http://www.hcdistrictclerk.com (last visited Nov. 3, 2017).
1
at:
2
Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 2. Because Elliott provides
no details in support of his request for relief, the court takes
judicial notice of facts articulated by him in another civil action
filed on the same day as the pending Petition.
See Elliott v.
Collins, Civil No. H-17-3336 (S.D. Tex.).
3
Id. at 4. Court records reflect that the charges in cause
number 1499861 were dismissed on March 29, 2017, after Elliott pled
guilty in a related case (cause number 1499673). See Harris County
District
Clerk's
Office
website,
located
at:
http://www.
hcdistrictclerk.com (last visited Nov. 3, 2017)
-2-
To the extent that Elliott challenges his confinement without
bond in cause number 1499861,
Elliott cannot state a claim for
federal habeas corpus relief because he is no longer in custody
pursuant to that case.
"The federal habeas corpus statute requires
that the applicant must be 'in custody' when the application for
habeas corpus is filed."
Carafas v. LaVallee, 88 S. Ct. 1556, 1560
(1968); see also Maleng v. Cook, 109 S. Ct. 1923, 1925 (1989)
curiam) .
(per
Because Elliott does not meet this threshold requirement,
the Petition must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted.
III.
Certificate of Appealability
Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases 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
court's
wrong."'
"that
assessment
2253 (c) (2),
§
'reasonable
of
the
which requires a petitioner to
jurists
would
constitutional
find
claims
the
district
debatable
Tennard v. Dretke, 124 S. Ct. 2562, 2565 (2004)
or
(quoting
Slack v. McDaniel, 120 S. Ct. 1595, 1604 (2000)).
A district court may deny a
certificate of appealability,
sua sponte, without requiring further briefing or argument.
See
Alexander v.
For
Johnson,
211 F. 3d 895,
-3-
898
(5th Cir.
2000) .
reasons
set forth above,
this
court concludes
that
jurists of
reason would not debate whether the petitioner states a valid claim
for relief.
Therefore,
a certificate of appealability will not
issue.
IV.
Conclusion and Order
Based on the foregoing, the court ORDERS as follows:
1.
The Application for Leave to Proceed Without
Prepayment of Fees (Docket Entry No. 2) is GRANTED.
2.
Kendrick Lavar Elliott's Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Docket
Entry No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice.
3.
A certificate of appealability is DENIED.
The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Memorandum
Opinion and Order to the petitioner.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 8th day of November, 2017.
LAKE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-4-
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?