Romero v. Thaler, Director TDCJ-CID

S.D. Texas

Romero v. Thaler, Director TDCJ-CID

DecidedSeptember 13, 2019

Docket3:13-cv-00098

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Romero v. Thaler, Director TDCJ-CID, (S.D. Tex. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT September 13, 2019 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS David J. Bradley, Clerk GALVESTON DIVISION

NELSON ROMERO, § TDCJ # 01127658, § § Petitioner, § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-CV-98 § WILLIAM STEPHENS, § § Respondent. §

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On April 26, 2018, this Court dismissed Romero’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus and entered final judgment (Dkt. 49, Dkt. 50). Romero then filed two motions for reconsideration, which the Court denied (Dkt. 54, Dkt. 58). On August 19, 2019, Romero filed a notice of appeal (Dkt. 59). The Court now ORDERS as follows: 1. Romero has filed a motion for documents, invoking 28 U.S.C. § 2250. Because Romero does not identify any specific document relevant to his motion and has not otherwise demonstrated a basis for the relief he seeks, his motion for documents (Dkt. 61) is DENIED. 2. Romero has filed a motion for Rule 60(b) relief. Rule 60(b) is an uncommon means for relief, and “final judgments should not be lightly reopened.” Lowry Dev., L.L.C. v. Groves & Associates Ins., Inc., 690 F.3d 382, 385 (5th Cir. 2012) (internal citation, alteration, and quotation marks omitted). A Rule 60(b) motion may not be used to raise arguments that could have been raised prior to judgment or to argue new legal theories. Dial One of the Mid-S., Inc. v. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., 401 F.3d 603, 607 (Sth Cir. 2005). Because Romero presents no valid ground for relief, his motion for Rule 60(b) relief (Dkt. 62) is DENIED. 3. Romero’s motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis is incomplete because Romero has not included a certified copy of his inmate trust fund account statement. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (Dkt. 64) therefore is DENIED at this time without prejudice to reconsideration if Romero files an amended, properly supported motion within thirty days from the date of this order. 4. Romero’s motion for a DKT-13 form (Dkt. 65) is GRANTED. The Court INSTRUCTS the Clerk to mail a DKT-13 form to Romero. 5. Romero’s motion for extension of time to file his appeal (Dkt. 66) is DENIED because the Court lacks authority to extend Fifth Circuit deadlines. 6. For the reasons previously stated (Dkt. 49), a certificate of appealability is DENIED. The Clerk will send a copy of this order to the parties. SIGNED this day 13th day of September, 2019.

Llee-a¢ C lon George C. Hanks Jr. United States District Judge

2/2

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT September 13, 2019 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS David J. Bradley, Clerk GALVESTON DIVISION

NELSON ROMERO, § TDCJ # 01127658, § § Petitioner, § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-CV-98 § WILLIAM STEPHENS, § § Respondent. §

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On April 26, 2018, this Court dismissed Romero’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus and entered final judgment (Dkt. 49, Dkt. 50). Romero then filed two motions for reconsideration, which the Court denied (Dkt. 54, Dkt. 58). On August 19, 2019, Romero filed a notice of appeal (Dkt. 59). The Court now ORDERS as follows: 1. Romero has filed a motion for documents, invoking 28 U.S.C. § 2250. Because Romero does not identify any specific document relevant to his motion and has not otherwise demonstrated a basis for the relief he seeks, his motion for documents (Dkt. 61) is DENIED. 2. Romero has filed a motion for Rule 60(b) relief. Rule 60(b) is an uncommon means for relief, and “final judgments should not be lightly reopened.” Lowry Dev., L.L.C. v. Groves & Associates Ins., Inc., 690 F.3d 382, 385 (5th Cir. 2012) (internal citation, alteration, and quotation marks omitted). A Rule 60(b) motion may not be used to raise arguments that could have been raised prior to judgment or to argue new legal theories. Dial One of the Mid-S., Inc. v. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., 401 F.3d 603, 607 (Sth Cir. 2005). Because Romero presents no valid ground for relief, his motion for Rule 60(b) relief (Dkt. 62) is DENIED. 3. Romero’s motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis is incomplete because Romero has not included a certified copy of his inmate trust fund account statement. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (Dkt. 64) therefore is DENIED at this time without prejudice to reconsideration if Romero files an amended, properly supported motion within thirty days from the date of this order. 4. Romero’s motion for a DKT-13 form (Dkt. 65) is GRANTED. The Court INSTRUCTS the Clerk to mail a DKT-13 form to Romero. 5. Romero’s motion for extension of time to file his appeal (Dkt. 66) is DENIED because the Court lacks authority to extend Fifth Circuit deadlines. 6. For the reasons previously stated (Dkt. 49), a certificate of appealability is DENIED. The Clerk will send a copy of this order to the parties. SIGNED this day 13th day of September, 2019.

Llee-a¢ C lon George C. Hanks Jr. United States District Judge

2/2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Romero v. Thaler, Director TDCJ-CID, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/romero-v-thaler-director-tdcj-cid-txsd-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack