Sanchez v. Stephens, No. 4:2016cv00590 - Document 15 (S.D. Tex. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER dismissing 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, denying 9 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Brief in Support, denying as moot 14 MOTION for Order to Show Cause as to why writ of habeas should Not be granted pursuant to 28USC2243. A Certificate of Appealability is denied. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (aboyd, 4)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Sanchez v. Stephens Doc. 15 United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED September 01, 2016 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION JUAN MANUEL SANCHEZ, TDCJ #1942704, § § § § § § § § § § § § § Petitioner, v. LORIE DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent. David J. Bradley, Clerk CIVIL ACTION NO. H-16-0590 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Juan Manuel Sanchez (TDCJ #1942704) has filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody ("Petition") (Docket Entry No. 1), challenging the administration of his sentence particular, by the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles. In Sanchez argues that officials wrongfully denied him release on the form of parole known as mandatory supervision. The respondent has filed a "Motion for Summary Judgment with Brief in Support" (Docket Entry No. 9). Sanchez has filed an "Opposition to Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment with Brief in Support" (Docket Entry No. 11) and a "[Motion for an] Order to Show Cause," seeking his immediate release (Docket Entry No. 14). Sanchez has Dockets.Justia.com also filed a "Change of Address" notice (Docket Entry No. advising the court that he has been released from prison. considering all of the pleadings and the applicable 13) , After law, the pending motions will be denied and this case will be dismissed as moot for the reasons explained below. I . Background At the time the Petition was filed, Sanchez was in custody of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Correctional Institutions Division ("TDCJ") as the result of a conviction from the 226th District Court for Bexar County, Texas, in cause number 2013CR7213 . 1 intoxicated Sanchez ("DWI") was convicted of felony driving while in that case and sentenced to three years' imprisonment on July 14, 2014. 2 Sanchez does not challenge the validity of his conviction here. In the pending Petition, which was executed on March 3, 2016, Sanchez challenges the administration of his sentence by the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles regarding his eligibility for early release from prison on mandatory supervision. 3 Sanchez contends that he has been wrongfully denied release on mandatory supervision in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause, the Due Process Clause, 1 Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, pp. 1-2, 10. 2 Judgment of Conviction by Court - Waiver of Jury Trial, Entry No. 10-3, p. 62. 3 Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, pp. 6-7, 10. -2- Docket the Equal Protection Doctrine. 4 Clause, and the Separation of Powers The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied relief on these claims without a written order. 5 released from custody. In August 2016, Sanchez was 6 Discussion II. Sanchez's release from custody requires the court to examine whether it has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h) (3) ("If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action."). The United States Supreme Court has explained that a habeas petition becomes moot and must be dismissed if it "no longer present[s] a case or controversy under Article III, § 2 of the Constitution." Under the continue case-or-controversy to lawsuit.'" Ct. Spencer v. Kemna, 118 S. Ct. 978, 983 (1998). 1249, litigation, have Id. a requirement, 'personal stake in "[t] he the parties outcome' (quoting Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 1253-54 (1990)). the plaintiff "This means that, 'must have suffered, of must the 110 S. throughout the or be threatened with, an actual injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.'" Spencer, 118 S. Ct. 4 Id. at 6-7. 5 Action Taken on Writ No. 84,472-02, Docket Entry No. 11, p. 9. 6 Change of Address, Docket Entry No. 13, p. 1. -3- at 983 (quoting Lewis, 110 S. Ct. at 1253). A habeas conviction petitioner's satisfies the challenge to the III Article validity of a case-or-controversy requirement because the incarceration, or the restrictions imposed by the terms of parole, constitute a concrete injury caused by the conviction and redressable by invalidation of the conviction. Spencer, 118 S. Ct. at 983. By contrast, where challenges only the administration of his sentence, a See petitioner and not his conviction, there is no presumption that collateral consequences exist for the purpose of creating an actionable case or controversy once he has been released. See id. at 986 (citing Lane v. Williams, 102 S. Ct. 1322, 1328-29 (1982)). As noted above, Sanchez does not challenge the validity of his underlying conviction in this case. Rather, he complains only that prison officials have erred in the administration of his sentence with regard to his eligibility for mandatory supervision. Because early release Sanchez has been on parole or released parole, there is no longer anything for this court to remedy. other words, he cannot continues in this case. no longer has show that an actionable on In controversy Absent a case or controversy, this court jurisdiction to consider Sanchez's claims. Therefore, his petition must be dismissed as moot. III. Certificate of Appealability Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires a -4- 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 2253 (c) (2), § "that reasonable jurists would district Tennard v. Dretke, 124 S. Ct. 2562, 2565 (2004) controlling standard, S. this Ct. 1595, requires claims the wrong." 120 constitutional find assessment McDaniel, the which requires a petitioner to court's Slack v. of constitutional 1604 a debatable (2000)). or (quoting Under the petitioner to show "that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were encouragement to proceed further.'" Ct. 1029, 1039 (2003). Where 'adequate to deserve Miller-El v. Cockrell, 123 S. denial of relief is 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 correct in its procedural ruling." the district court was Slack, 120 S. Ct. at 1604. A district court may deny a certificate of appealability, sua sponte, without Alexander v. reasons set requiring Johnson, forth 211 above, further briefing F.3d 895, this court -5- 898 or argument. (5th Cir. concludes that 2000). See For jurists of reason would not debate whether rendered his petition moot. (1998). the petitioner's release has See Spenser v. Kemna, 118 S. Ct. 978 Therefore, a certificate of appealability will not issue. IV. Accordingly, based Conclusion and Order 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 Juan Manuel Sanchez (Docket Entry No. 1) is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction as moot. 2. The respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 9) and the petitioner's Motion for an Order to Show Cause (Docket Entry No. 14) are DENIED as moot. 3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. The Clerk shall provide a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to the parties. SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this the ts-t day of~' 2016. 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.
