Johnson v. Stephens-Director TDCJ-CID, No. 3:2016cv00055 - Document 13 (N.D. Tex. 2016)

Court Description: Order Accepting Findings and Recommendations and Denying Certificate of Appealability re: 9 Findings and Recommendations on Case re: 3 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Elloyd Johnson. For the reasons stated in the Findings, Con clusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, the Court hereby TRANSFERS the petition for habeas corpus to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit pursuant to Henderson v. Haro, 282 F.3d 862, 864 (5th Cir. 2002) and In re Epps, 127 F.3d 364, 365 (5th Cir. 1997). The petitioner is further ADMONISHED that he may be subject to sanctions if he continues to raise claims that were or could have been raised in his previous federal petition in this Court without first seeking and receiving authorization from the Fifth Circuit to file a successive petition. (Ordered by Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn on 3/22/2016) (ndt) Modified on 3/22/2016 (ndt).

Download PDF

Johnson v. Stephens-Director TDCJ-CID Doc. 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION ELLOYD JOHNSON ID # 840854, Petitioner, vs. WILLIAM STEPHENS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 3:16-CV-55-M ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE After reviewing the objections to the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and conducting a de novo review of those parts of the Findings and Conclusions to which objections have been made, I am of the opinion that the Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and they are accepted as the Findings and Conclusions of the Court. For the reasons stated in the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, the Court hereby TRANSFERS the petition for habeas corpus to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit pursuant to Henderson v. Haro, 282 F.3d 862, 864 (5th Cir. 2002) and In re Epps, 127 F.3d 364, 365 (5th Cir. 1997). The petitioner is further ADMONISHED that he may be subject to sanctions if he continues to raise claims that were or could have been raised in his previous federal petition in this Court without first seeking and receiving authorization from the Fifth Circuit to file a successive petition. In accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 22(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) and after considering the record in this case and the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the Court DENIES the Dockets.Justia.com petitioner a Certificate of Appealability. The Court adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge’s Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation filed in this case in support of its finding that the petitioner has failed to show (1) that reasonable jurists would find this Court’s “assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong,” or (2) that reasonable jurists would find “it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right” and “debatable whether [this Court] was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).1 SIGNED this 22nd day of March, 2016. _________________________________ BARBARA M. G. LYNN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 1 Rule 11 of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 Cases, as amended effective on December 1, 2009, reads as follows: (a) Certificate of Appealability. The district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant. Before entering the final order, the court may direct the parties to submit arguments on whether a certificate should issue. If the court issues a certificate, the court must state the specific issue or issues that satisfy the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). If the court denies a certificate, the parties may not appeal the denial but may seek a certificate from the court of appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22. A motion to reconsider a denial does not extend the time to appeal. (b) Time to Appeal. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) governs the time to appeal an order entered under these rules. A timely notice of appeal must be filed even if the district court issues a certificate of appealability. 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.