Olin Nowlin v. William Stephens, Director, No. 13-10620 (5th Cir. 2013)

 Annotate this Case

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

Download PDF
Case: 13-10620 Document: 00512471808 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/16/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 13-10620 Summary Calendar FILED December 16, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk OLIN RAY NOWLIN, 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. 4:13-CV-28 Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Olin Ray Nowlin, Texas prisoner # 824386, appeals the district court s dismissal of his petition for writ of mandamus, in which Nowlin asked the district court to compel the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to order the state trial court to file his state postconviction application and brief that it had refused to file in June 2012. Nowlin s assertions that he was not seeking 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 13-10620 Document: 00512471808 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/16/2013 No. 13-10620 mandamus relief, that the district court should have construed his petition as a 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 petition, and that the district court should have filed and considered his mandamus petition as part of case number 4:04-CV-949-Y based on newly discovered evidence are frivolous. The appeal is without arguable merit and is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Nowlin is WARNED that any future frivolous filings in this court or any court subject to this court s jurisdiction will subject him to sanctions. 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.