Robert Taylor, II v. William Stephens, Director, No. 13-10140 (5th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 13-10140 Document: 00512507412 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/21/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 13-10140 Summary Calendar FILED January 21, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk ROBERT RICHARD TAYLOR, II, 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. 4:12-CV-438 Before KING, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Robert Richard Taylor, II, Texas prisoner # 1530454, pleaded guilty to two counts of possession of child pornography and two counts of possession of child pornography with intent to promote, which resulted in two concurrent 10-year and two concurrent 15-year sentences. He appeals the district court s denial of a motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of mandamus to obtain 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 13-10140 Document: 00512507412 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/21/2014 No. 13-10140 the return of the documents filed in his purported 28 U.S.C. § 2241 proceeding and the denial of his motion to recuse the trial judge. At the time these motions were filed, the district court had already dismissed Taylor s § 2241 petition in part as an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application and denied it in part on the merits. The majority of Taylor s brief consists of challenges to the validity of his state convictions and the district court s reconstruction of his § 2241 petition as arising under § 2254. However, he had voluntarily dismissed his appeal following the district court s rejection of his habeas proceeding, and his current notice of appeal is not timely from that final judgment. See Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). Accordingly, we decline to consider these claims. To the extent that Taylor challenges the district court s refusal to order the return of his § 2241 petition and his supporting exhibits, he cites to no authority establishing that he is entitled to such relief. Because he has not shown that any government officer or employee owed him the return of those documents, the district court properly denied Taylor s request for a writ of mandamus. See 28 U.S.C. § 1361. As for Taylor s assertion that the district judge should have recused himself from the case, his allegations of the adverse decisions are insufficient to support a claim of bias. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). Because Taylor has not established error in the denial of his motions, the district court s orders are AFFIRMED. In light of this ruling, all outstanding motions are DENIED. 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.
