Reynolds v. Director, TDCJ-CID

E.D. Texas

Reynolds v. Director, TDCJ-CID

DecidedOctober 4, 2021

Docket4:21-cv-00239

StatusUnknown

This text of Reynolds v. Director, TDCJ-CID (Reynolds v. Director, TDCJ-CID) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Reynolds v. Director, TDCJ-CID, (E.D. Tex. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION JACKY CLAY REYNOLDS, #1314728 § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:21cv239 § DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID § ORDER OF DISMISSAL This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Christine A. Nowak, who issued a Report and Recommendation on August 23, 2021, concluding that Petitioner’s case should be dismissed as successive and for failing to pay the filing fee (Dkt. # 17). The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, which contains proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition of such action, has been presented for consideration. On September 15, 2021, Petitioner filed objections to the Report. (Dkt. #19). In his objections, Petitioner complains about his inability to pay the $5.00 filing fee. The Court initially notes that Petitioner was given numerous opportunities since March 29, 2021, in which to pay the filing fee. (Dkt. ##4, 6, 8, 12). The record reflects that, after the Report and Recommendation was issued, the $5.00 filing fee was paid on September 8, 2021; thus, the recommendation to dismiss for failure to prosecute is now moot. More importantly, however, the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of this case because it is a successive petition, and the Court has no jurisdiction to consider successive petitions. See In re Epps, 127 F.3d 364 (5th Cir. 1997). In his objections, Petitioner fails to show he has permission from the Fifth Circuit to file a successive petition. Accordingly, the Court simply does

1 not have jurisdiction to consider this case. Id. After conducting a de novo review of the objections raised by Petitioner, the Court finds they are without merit. For these reasons, the Court concludes that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct to the extent that Petitioner filed a successive petition without

permission from the Fifth Circuit, and adopts the same as the findings and conclusions of the Court. Accordingly, it is ORDERED the petition for writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. # 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice as successive, subject to Petitioner gaining permission from the Fifth Circuit to file a successive petition. It is further ORDERED all motions by either party not previously ruled upon are DENIED.

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION JACKY CLAY REYNOLDS, #1314728 § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:21cv239 § DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID § ORDER OF DISMISSAL This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Christine A. Nowak, who issued a Report and Recommendation on August 23, 2021, concluding that Petitioner’s case should be dismissed as successive and for failing to pay the filing fee (Dkt. # 17). The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, which contains proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition of such action, has been presented for consideration. On September 15, 2021, Petitioner filed objections to the Report. (Dkt. #19). In his objections, Petitioner complains about his inability to pay the $5.00 filing fee. The Court initially notes that Petitioner was given numerous opportunities since March 29, 2021, in which to pay the filing fee. (Dkt. ##4, 6, 8, 12). The record reflects that, after the Report and Recommendation was issued, the $5.00 filing fee was paid on September 8, 2021; thus, the recommendation to dismiss for failure to prosecute is now moot. More importantly, however, the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of this case because it is a successive petition, and the Court has no jurisdiction to consider successive petitions. See In re Epps, 127 F.3d 364 (5th Cir. 1997). In his objections, Petitioner fails to show he has permission from the Fifth Circuit to file a successive petition. Accordingly, the Court simply does

1 not have jurisdiction to consider this case. Id. After conducting a de novo review of the objections raised by Petitioner, the Court finds they are without merit. For these reasons, the Court concludes that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct to the extent that Petitioner filed a successive petition without

permission from the Fifth Circuit, and adopts the same as the findings and conclusions of the Court. Accordingly, it is ORDERED the petition for writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. # 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice as successive, subject to Petitioner gaining permission from the Fifth Circuit to file a successive petition. It is further ORDERED all motions by either party not previously ruled upon are DENIED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Reynolds v. Director, TDCJ-CID, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reynolds-v-director-tdcj-cid-txed-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack