Phillip Adams v. William Stephens, Director, No. 12-11264 (5th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on January 20, 2014.

Download PDF

Case: 12-11264 Document: 00512452242 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/25/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 12-11264 Summary Calendar FILED November 25, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk PHILLIP ALAN ADAMS, Petitioner-Appellant v. WILLIAM STEPHENS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION, Respondent-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:07-CV-534 Before JOLLY, SMITH, AND CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Phillip Alan Adams, Texas prisoner # 907082, is serving a life sentence imposed after a jury convicted him of capital murder. He filed an untimely 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition in 2007, followed by an unsuccessful motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). We denied a certificate of appealability (COA) from each of those decisions. Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 12-11264 Document: 00512452242 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/25/2013 No. 12-11264 In 2012, Adams filed a second Rule 60 motion, arguing that no COA should have been required for his appeal from the denial of the first Rule 60 motion. The district court denied the motion. Adams has appealed to our court without having sought a COA from the district court or our court. Adams denies that a COA is needed. A COA is required before we may consider this appeal. See Ochoa Canales v. Quarterman, 507 F.3d 884, 886-88 (5th Cir. 2007); 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). Because Adams has not obtained a COA and does not ask for one, his appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. See § 2253(c)(1); Miller El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335 36 (2003) (holding that the COA requirement of § 2253(c)(1) is a jurisdictional prerequisite ). We note nonetheless that the claims Adams seeks to raise on appeal are so plainly frivolous that any further effort to obtain a COA would be futile. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.