Esquivel v. United States of America, No. 3:2016cv01695 - Document 5 (N.D. Tex. 2016)

Court Description: Order: Habeas corpus petition is successive, and the clerk is directed to transfer the matter to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. (Fifth Circuit notified via copy of the Notice of Electronic Filing.) Order accepting 4 Findings and Recommendations on Case. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 10/6/2016) (rekc)

Download PDF
Esquivel v. United States of America Doc. 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION RELVY ESQUIVEL, #37446-177, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. § § § § § § § § § Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-1695-L (Criminal Case 3:08-CR-174-L) ORDER This habeas case was referred to Magistrate Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez, who entered the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) (Doc. 4) on June 23, 2016, recommending that Petitioner’s habeas petition be construed as successive and transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. ' 2244(b)(3). No objections to the Report were received as of the date of this order. When a petition is deemed successive, the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction unless a panel of the Fifth Circuit allows the successive petition to proceed. After reviewing the pleadings, file, record in this case, and Report, the court determines that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and accepts them as those of the court. Accordingly, the court directs the clerk of the court to transfer the habeas petition in this case to the Fifth Circuit for determination, and dismisses without prejudice this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Order – Page 1 Dockets.Justia.com It is so ordered this 6th day of October, 2016. _________________________________ Sam A. Lindsay United States District Judge Order – Page 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.