Humphries v. Director, TDCJ-CID

• Court: District Court, N.D. Texas
• Decided: March 1, 2021
• Docket: 3:19-cv-02100
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION EARL WAYNE HUMPHRIES, § TDCJ No. 2192900, § Petitioner, § § v. § No. 3:19-cv-2100-B (BN) § DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID, §§ Respondent. § ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, DENYING REQUESTS FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING AND APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a recommendation in this case. The Petitioner, Earl Wayne Humphries, filed objections. The District Court reviewed de novo those parts of the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation to which Humphries specifically objected and the rest for plain error. Finding no error, the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. The Court has also considered Humphries’s requests for an evidentiary hearing (doc. 26) and for court-appointed counsel to represent him in connection with that hearing (doc. 27). However, “review under [28 U.S.C.] § 2254(d)(1) is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits.” Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 181 (2011); see also Blue v. Thaler, 665 F.3d 647, 656 (5th Cir. 2011) (same as to factual determinations under section 2254(d)(2)). Here, as in Pinholster, Humphries only alleges non-defaulted claims under section 2254(d)(1) that were adjudicated on the merits in state court. As such, he cannot overcome the limitation of section 2254(d)(1) on the record that was before the state court and is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. Thus, Humphries’s Request for an Evidentiary Hearing (doc. 26) and Request for Appointment of Counsel (doc. 27) are DENIED. Further, considering the record in this case and pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b), Rule 11(a) 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 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).1

But, if Petitioner does file a notice of appeal, he must either pay the appellate filing fee of $505.00 or move for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.

1 Rule 11 of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 Cases, as amended effective on December 1, 2009, 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. 2 SO ORDERED. DATED: Marsh 1, 2021.

JANE J. BOY UPMTED ST S DISTRICT JUDGE