Shanklin v. Stephens, No. 4:2015cv02677 - Document 6 (S.D. Tex. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER dismissing without prejudice 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (aboyd, 4)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Shanklin v. Stephens Doc. 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION JARED LLOYD SHANKLIN, TDCJ #1202034, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM STEPHENS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Respondent. § § § § § § § § § § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. H-15-2677 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The petitioner, Jared Lloyd Shanklin (TDCJ #1202034), has filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody ("Petition") (Docket Entry No. 1), seeking relief from a state court judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. of the pleadings and the applicable law, After considering all the court will dismiss this action for the reasons explained below. I. Background Shanklin is currently incarcerated in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Correctional Institutions Division ("TDCJ") as the result of a 0941654. 2003 Shanklin conviction in Harris was convicted of County cause number murder in that case and sentenced to 60 years' imprisonment by the 337th District Court for Harris County, Texas . The conviction was affirmed on direct Dockets.Justia.com appeal, but was remanded for resentencing. Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. dism'd). 190 S.W.3d 154 (Tex. App. In his September See Shanklin v. State, 9, 2015, federal habeas corpus Petition Shanklin contends that he is entitled to relief because he was denied effective assistance of counsel on direct appeal. 1 Shanklin contends further that he was denied a fair trial when the trial court failed to allow his defense counsel to lodge an objection during closing arguments. 2 Shanklin discloses that he has filed a previous federal habeas corpus petition 0941654. 3 to challenge his conviction in cause number Court records confirm that the district court dismissed that petition with prejudice on September 21, 2009. See Shanklin v. Quarterman, (S.D. Tex.). Civil No. H-08-1111, 2009 WL 3052677 The Fifth Circuit affirmed that decision in an unpublished opinion. See Shanklin v. Thaler, 422 F. App'x 319, 2011 WL 1438437 (5th Cir. April 14, 2011). Thereafter, the United States Supreme Court denied Shanklin's petition for a writ of certiorari. See Shanklin v. Thaler, 132 S. Ct. 409 (2011). II. Discussion The Petition filed by Shanklin in this case is governed by the Anti -Terrorism and Effective Death 1 Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 6. 2 Id. 3 Id. at 4, 8. -2- Penalty Act (the "AEDPA") , codified as amended at 28 U.S.C. 2244(b), § which imposes restrictions on the filing of "second or successive" applications for habeas relief. permitted by this Before a section is second or successive application filed in the district court, the applicant must move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application. See 28 u.s.c. 2244 (b) {3) (A). § If the pending Petition qualifies as a successive writ, this court has no jurisdiction to consider it absent prior authorization from the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit has recognized that "a prisoner's application is not second or successive simply because it follows an earlier federal petition." Cir. 1998). successive" Rather, when it: In re Cain, 137 F.3d 234, 235 (5th subsequent a (1) application "raises a claim is "second challenging or the petitioner's conviction or sentence that was or could have been raised in an earlier petition"; or (2) abuse of the writ." "otherwise constitutes an Id.; see also United States v. Orozco-Ramirez, 211 F.3d 862, 867 (5th Cir. 2000). The claims raised by Shanklin in his pending Petition could have been included in his earlier petition. Thus, the pending Petition meets the second-or- successive criteria. The issue of whether a habeas corpus petition is successive may be raised by the district court sua sponte. Johnson, 104 F.3d 694, 697 (5th Cir. 1997). See Rodriquez v. Because the pending Petition is successive, Shanklin is required to seek authorization -3- from the Fifth Circuit before application. See 2 8 U.S. C. of [28 U.S.C. § this court 2244 (b) ( 3) (A) . § can consider his "Indeed, the purpose 2244(b)] was to eliminate the need for the district courts to repeatedly consider challenges to the same conviction unless an appellate panel first found that those challenges had some merit." 2000) United States v. 205 F.3d 773, Shanklin has not presented the requisite authorization. Absent Petition. this Id. at 775. court lacks 235 (5th Cir. 1998)). authorization, 137 F.3d 234, 774 (5th Cir. such (citing In re Cain, Key, jurisdiction over the Accordingly, the Petition must be dismissed as an unauthorized successive writ. III. Certificate of Appealability Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases now requires a district court to issue or deny a certificate of appealability when entering a final order that is adverse to the petitioner. A certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner makes "a substantial showing of the denial of a right," 28 U.S.C. demonstrate "that 2253 (c) (2), § reasonable jurists would Tennard v. Dretke, 124 S. Ct. 2562, 2565 (2004) controlling standard, S. Ct. 1595, this requires 1604 a claims the wrong." 120 constitutional find assessment McDaniel, the which requires a petitioner to court's Slack v. of constitutional (2000)). district debatable or (quoting Under the petitioner to show "that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree -4- that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were encouragement to proceed further.'" Where denial of relief is to 'adequate deserve Miller-El, 123 S. Ct. at 1039. based on procedural grounds, the petitioner must show not only that "jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right," but also that they "would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling." Slack, 120 S. Ct. at 1604. A district court may deny a certificate of appealability, sua sponte, without requiring further briefing or argument. See Alexander v. For reasons Johnson, 211 F.3d 895, set forth above, this 898 (5th Cir. court concludes that 2000). jurists of reason would not debate whether any procedural ruling in this case was correct or whether the Petition in this case qualifies as a second or successive application. Therefore, a certificate of appealability will not issue. IV. Conclusion and Order Based on the foregoing, the court ORDERS as follows: 1. The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody filed by Jared Lloyd Shanklin (Docket Entry No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction as an unauthorized successive application. 2. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. -5- The Clerk shall provide a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to the parties. SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 28th day of September, 2015. SIM LAKE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -6-
]]>
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.
