Dingler v. 432nd Judicial District of Texas

N.D. Texas

Dingler v. 432nd Judicial District of Texas

DecidedSeptember 17, 2024

Docket3:24-cv-02104

StatusUnknown

This text of Dingler v. 432nd Judicial District of Texas (Dingler v. 432nd Judicial District of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dingler v. 432nd Judicial District of Texas, (N.D. Tex. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION JOSEPH DINGLER, § #241333, § Petitioner, § § v. § Civil Action No. 3:24-CV-2104-L-BN § 432ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF § TEXAS, § § Respondent. § ORDER On August 28, 2024, United States Magistrate Judge David Horan entered the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) (Doc. 6), recommending that the court dismiss without prejudice pro se Petitioner Joseph Dingler’s (“Petitioner” or “Mr. Dingler”) petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Docs. 2 & 3). The Report recommended dismissal because Petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies as required. Petitioner has not filed any objections to the Report, and the time to do so has passed. Having reviewed the pleadings, file, record in this case, Report, and Petitions, the court determines that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and accepts them as those of the court. Mr. Dingler has not satisfied the requirement to exhaust his available state remedies because he has not shown that his pending state court trial has been resolved. Accordingly, the court denies Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He has failed to exhaust his available state remedies as required, and for this reason, the court dismisses without prejudice this action. Further, the court directs the clerk of the court to term all pending motions. A certificate of appealability is not required to appeal the denial of relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424, 425 (Sth Cir. 2005). If Petitioner files a notice of appeal, he must pay the $605 appellate filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and a properly signed certificate of inmate trust account. It is so ordered this 17th day of September, 2024.

Sam A. Lindsay United States District Judge

Order — Page 2

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION JOSEPH DINGLER, § #241333, § Petitioner, § § v. § Civil Action No. 3:24-CV-2104-L-BN § 432ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF § TEXAS, § § Respondent. § ORDER On August 28, 2024, United States Magistrate Judge David Horan entered the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) (Doc. 6), recommending that the court dismiss without prejudice pro se Petitioner Joseph Dingler’s (“Petitioner” or “Mr. Dingler”) petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Docs. 2 & 3). The Report recommended dismissal because Petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies as required. Petitioner has not filed any objections to the Report, and the time to do so has passed. Having reviewed the pleadings, file, record in this case, Report, and Petitions, the court determines that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and accepts them as those of the court. Mr. Dingler has not satisfied the requirement to exhaust his available state remedies because he has not shown that his pending state court trial has been resolved. Accordingly, the court denies Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He has failed to exhaust his available state remedies as required, and for this reason, the court dismisses without prejudice this action. Further, the court directs the clerk of the court to term all pending motions. A certificate of appealability is not required to appeal the denial of relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424, 425 (Sth Cir. 2005). If Petitioner files a notice of appeal, he must pay the $605 appellate filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and a properly signed certificate of inmate trust account. It is so ordered this 17th day of September, 2024.

Sam A. Lindsay United States District Judge

Order — Page 2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Dingler v. 432nd Judicial District of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dingler-v-432nd-judicial-district-of-texas-txnd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack