Brandon E. Devillier v. Director, TDCJ-ID

• Court: District Court, E.D. Texas
• Decided: October 30, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00216
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BRANDON E. DEVILLIER, § § Petitioner, § § versus § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:25-CV-216 § DIRECTOR, TDCJ-ID, § § Respondent. § MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Brandon E. Devillier, proceeding pro se, filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court previously referred this matter to the Honorable Christine L. Stetson, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of the court. The magistrate judge has submitted a Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge recommending the petition be dismissed as barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The court has received the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge, along with the record, pleadings, and all available evidence. Petitioner filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. The court must therefore conduct a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and the applicable law. The magistrate judge concluded the applicable period of limitations began to run on June 20, 2018, when the convictions became final upon the expiration of the time for seeking direct review of the convictions. In his objections, petitioner does not take issue with this conclusion. Instead, petitioner asserts he is entitled to relief on the merits because he was coerced into signing certain documents and because the record does not support his convictions. While petitioner asserts these arguments are based on newly discovered evidence, he does not describe what the evidence is or attempt to explain why the evidence could not have been discovered earlier through the exercise of due diligence. As a result, petitioner’s objections are without merit. ORDER Accordingly, the objections filed by petitioner (#3) are OVERRULED. The findings of fact and conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are correct and the report of the magistrate judge (#2) is ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered denying the petition. Furthermore, petitioner is not entitled to the issuance of a certificate of appealability. An appeal from a final judgment denying habeas relief may not proceed unless a certificate of appealability is issued. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253. The standard for a certificate of appealability requires the petitioner to make a substantial showing of the denial of a federal constitutional right. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000); Elizalde v. Dretke, 362 F.3d 323, 328 (Sth Cir. 2004). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner need not establish that he would prevail on the merits. Rather, he must demonstrate that the issues raised in the petition are subject to debate among jurists of reason, that a court could resolve the issues in a different manner, or that the questions presented are worthy of encouragement to proceed further. See Slack, 529 U.S. at 483-84. Any doubt regarding whether to grant a certificate of appealability should be resolved in favor of the petitioner, and the severity of the penalty may be considered in making this determination. See Miller v. Johnson, 200 F.3d 274, 280-81 (Sth Cir. 2000). In this case, the petitioner has not shown that the issue of whether his petition is barred by the applicable statute of limitations is subject to debate amongst jurists of reason. The factual and legal questions raised by petitioner have been consistently resolved adversely to his position and the questions presented are not worthy of encouragement to proceed further. Petitioner has failed to make a sufficient showing to merit the issuance of a certificate of appealability. Thus, a certificate of appealability will not be issued. SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 30th day of October, 2025.

MARCIA A.CRONE- 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE