Mayes v. Director, TDCJ-CID

N.D. Texas

Mayes v. Director, TDCJ-CID

DecidedJanuary 6, 2025

Docket2:24-cv-00163

StatusUnknown

This text of Mayes v. Director, TDCJ-CID (Mayes v. Director, TDCJ-CID) 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

Mayes v. Director, TDCJ-CID, (N.D. Tex. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AMARILLO DIVISION CURTIS MAYES JR., Petitioner, v. 2:24-CV-163-Z-BR DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID, Respondent.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court are the findings, conclusions, and recommendation (“FCR”) of the United States Magistrate Judge to dismiss the 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus. ECF No. 3. No objections to the FCR have been filed. After making an independent review of the pleadings, files, and records in this case, the Court concludes that the FCR of the Magistrate Judge is correct. It is therefore ORDERED that the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are ADOPTED and the case is DISMISSED. Additionally, the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability (“COA”).' A district court may deny a COA sua sponte and without requiring further briefing or argument. See Alexander v. Johnson, 211 F.3d 895, 898 (Sth Cir. 2000). 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), and ADOPTING and INCORPORATING the Magistrate Judge’s FCR, the Court finds that Petitioner has failed to show that reasonable jurists would find

' Because the Motion to Vacate is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, codified as amended at 28 U.S.C. § 2253, a COA is a “jurisdictional prerequisite” before an appeal may proceed. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c\(1)); Hallmark v. Johnson, 118 F.3d 1073, 1076 (5th Cir. 1997) (noting §§ 2254 and 2255 actions require a COA).

“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). SO ORDERED. January b> 2025. Aan a HEW J. [aa 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 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AMARILLO DIVISION CURTIS MAYES JR., Petitioner, v. 2:24-CV-163-Z-BR DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID, Respondent.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court are the findings, conclusions, and recommendation (“FCR”) of the United States Magistrate Judge to dismiss the 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus. ECF No. 3. No objections to the FCR have been filed. After making an independent review of the pleadings, files, and records in this case, the Court concludes that the FCR of the Magistrate Judge is correct. It is therefore ORDERED that the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are ADOPTED and the case is DISMISSED. Additionally, the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability (“COA”).' A district court may deny a COA sua sponte and without requiring further briefing or argument. See Alexander v. Johnson, 211 F.3d 895, 898 (Sth Cir. 2000). 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), and ADOPTING and INCORPORATING the Magistrate Judge’s FCR, the Court finds that Petitioner has failed to show that reasonable jurists would find

' Because the Motion to Vacate is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, codified as amended at 28 U.S.C. § 2253, a COA is a “jurisdictional prerequisite” before an appeal may proceed. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c\(1)); Hallmark v. Johnson, 118 F.3d 1073, 1076 (5th Cir. 1997) (noting §§ 2254 and 2255 actions require a COA).

“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). SO ORDERED. January b> 2025. Aan a HEW J. [aa UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Mayes v. Director, TDCJ-CID, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mayes-v-director-tdcj-cid-txnd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack