Graham v. State of Texas

N.D. Texas

Graham v. State of Texas

DecidedSeptember 12, 2025

Docket3:25-cv-00964

StatusUnknown

This text of Graham v. State of Texas (Graham v. State 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

Graham v. State of Texas, (N.D. Tex. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

GENE GRAHAM, § #24053575, § § Petitioner, § § No. 3:25-cv-964-N V. § § STATE OF TEXAS, § § Respondent. §

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a recommendation in this case. No objections were filed. The District Court reviewed the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. To the extent that a certificate of appealability is required,1 considering the record in this case and pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b), Rule

1 See Stringer v. Williams, 161 F.3d 259, 262 (5th Cir. 1998) (“[In Ojo v. I.N.S., 106 F.3d 680 (5th Cir. 1997), w]e concluded that a COA was not required in the § 2241 proceeding at issue there, because § 2253 clearly does not encompass challenges to federal detention under § 2241. Just as clearly, however, § 2253 does encompass challenges to state detention under § 2241, since “the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court.” We hold that, assuming Stringer is a pretrial detainee, he must obtain a COA.”). 1 of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 proceedings, and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability. The Court adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge’s Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation filed in this case in support of its finding that Petitioner has failed to show that reasonable jurists would find “it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right” or “debatable whether [this Court] was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). But, if Petitioner elects to file a notice of appeal, Petitioner must either pay the appellate filing fee or move for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. SO ORDERED this 12 day of September, 2025.

D.- 6 ( “DAVID C. ODBEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

GENE GRAHAM, § #24053575, § § Petitioner, § § No. 3:25-cv-964-N V. § § STATE OF TEXAS, § § Respondent. §

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a recommendation in this case. No objections were filed. The District Court reviewed the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. To the extent that a certificate of appealability is required,1 considering the record in this case and pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b), Rule

1 See Stringer v. Williams, 161 F.3d 259, 262 (5th Cir. 1998) (“[In Ojo v. I.N.S., 106 F.3d 680 (5th Cir. 1997), w]e concluded that a COA was not required in the § 2241 proceeding at issue there, because § 2253 clearly does not encompass challenges to federal detention under § 2241. Just as clearly, however, § 2253 does encompass challenges to state detention under § 2241, since “the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court.” We hold that, assuming Stringer is a pretrial detainee, he must obtain a COA.”). 1 of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 proceedings, and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability. The Court adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge’s Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation filed in this case in support of its finding that Petitioner has failed to show that reasonable jurists would find “it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right” or “debatable whether [this Court] was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). But, if Petitioner elects to file a notice of appeal, Petitioner must either pay the appellate filing fee or move for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. SO ORDERED this 12 day of September, 2025.

D.- 6 ( “DAVID C. ODBEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Graham v. State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/graham-v-state-of-texas-txnd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack