Hernandez v. Director, TDCJ-CID

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION CARLOS ROMERO HERNANDEZ, ) ID #00806344, ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) No. 3:23-CV-1215-M-BH ) DIRECTOR, Texas Department of Criminal ) Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, ) Respondent. ) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY After reviewing the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge for plain error, I am of the opinion that the Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and they are accepted as the Findings and Conclusions of the Court. The Petition for Federal Writ of Habeas Corpus 28 USC §§ 2241(a)(b) Pursuant to 28 USC § 2241(a), received on May 22, 2023 (doc. 1), is CONSTRUED as a successive petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. By separate judgment, it will be DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction without prejudice to the petitioner’s right to file a motion for leave to file a successive § 2254 petition in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 22(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) and after considering the record in this case and the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the petitioner is DENIED a Certificate of Appealability. The Court adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge’s Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation in support of its finding that the petitioner has failed to show (1) that reasonable jurists would find this Court’s “assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong,” or (2) that reasonable jurists would find “it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right” and “debatable whether [this Court] was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).! In the event that the petitioner files a notice of appeal, he must pay the $505.00 appellate filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis that 1s accompanied by a properly signed certificate of inmate trust account. SIGNED this 12th day of September, 2023.

[AQ AAG fis BARA M. G. LYNN SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

| Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, as amended effective on December 1, 2019, reads as follows: (a) Certificate of Appealability. The district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant. Before entering the final order, the court may direct the parties to submit arguments on whether a certificate should issue. If the court issues a certificate, the court must state the specific issue or issues that satisfy the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). If the court denies a certificate, the parties may not appeal the denial but may seek a certificate from the court of appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22. A motion to reconsider a denial does not extend the time to appeal. (b) Time to Appeal. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) governs the time to appeal an order entered under these rules. A timely notice of appeal must be filed even if the district court issues a certificate of appealability.