Jackson v. Director, TDCJ-CID, No. 3:2018cv00229 - Document 55 (N.D. Tex. 2022)

Court Description: Order Accepting Findings and Recommendations and Denying Certificate of Appealability. For the reasons stated in the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, the 51 Petitioner's Written Objection to the Magistrate Report and Recommendation is hereby construed as a motion to alter or amend the judgment under FRCvP 59(e) and DENIED. (Ordered by Judge Jane J Boyle on 3/15/2022) (svc)

Download PDF
Jackson v. Director, TDCJ-CID Doc. 55 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION WILLIE FRANK JACKSON, ID # 1931429, Petitioner, ) ) ) ) vs. ) ) DIRECTOR, Texas Department of Criminal ) Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, ) Respondent. ) No. 3:18-CV-229-B-BH ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and any objections thereto, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court is 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 Petitioner’s Written Objection to the Magistrate Report and Recommendation, received on February 16, 2022 (doc. 51), is hereby construed as a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and DENIED. 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 petitioner is DENIED a Certificate of Appealability. The Court adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge’s Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation 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 Dockets.Justia.com 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 In the event that the petitioner files a notice of appeal, he must pay the $505.00 appellate filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis that is accompanied by a properly signed certificate of inmate trust account SIGNED this15th day of March, 2022. _________________________________ JANE J. BOYLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1 Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, as amended effective on December 1, 2019, 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 m ust be filed even if the district court issues a certificate of appealability.

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.