Your document has been successfully saved!

Search through millions of court cases, regulations, statutes and more...

Search for
Boolean Connector Use Result
AND Sleep AND Fall Records with both “Slip” and “Fall”
OR Lee OR Grant Records with either “Lee” or “Grant”
NOT Transaction NOT Fee Records that contain “Transaction” but exclude “Fee”
( ) (Tree OR Shrub) AND Fall Records containing “Tree” or “Shrub”, and the word “Fall”
" " "Capital Punishment" Records containing the exact phrase “Capital Punishment”
* Affirm* Records containing variations of the root word (such as “Affirmed”, “Affirming”, “Affirmation”, and etc…)
? Connect?r Records that contain single letter variations (such as “Connector” and “Connecter”)
Jurisdiction: Texas Northern District Court
Decision Date: 11/1/2016

STATES

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            FEDERAL

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Hobbs v. Davis Hobbs v. Davis (N.D. Tex., 2016)

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ERIC CHARLES HOBBS(TDCJ No. 1488486), Petitioner,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        v.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        LORIE DAVIS, Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        No. 3: 16-cv-2863-L-BN

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        November 1, 2016

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ERIC CHARLES HOBBS(TDCJ No. 1488486), Petitioner, v. LORIE DAVIS, Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        No. 3: 16-cv-2863-L-BN

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        November 1, 2016

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Petitioner Eric Charles Hobbs, a Texas inmate, proceeding pro se has filed a petition and a Court-ordered amended petition, both applications for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Dkt. Nos. 1, 5, & 6. For the reasons explained below, the amended petition is an unauthorized successive petition, and the Court should transfer it to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for appropriate action.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Applicable Background

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Hobbs attacks his 2010 Dallas County conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Although Hobbs states that he has not before filed a federal habeas petition attacking this conviction, see Dkt. No. 6 at 8, that statement is not correct. And the applicable background for this action may be found in the Court's previous denial of a Section 2254 application concerning this conviction on the basis that the

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Page 2

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        application was time-barred. See Hobbs v. Stephens No. 3: 15-cv-52-P-BK, 2015 WL 4486780 (N.D. Tex. July 22, 2015).

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Legal Standards and Analysis

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA") limits the circumstances under which a state prisoner may file a "second or successive" application for federal habeas relief, see generally 28 U.S.C. § 2244, and "was enacted in part to bring finality to state court judgments, " Leal Garcia v. Quarterman 573 F. 3d 214, 220 (5th Cir. 2009) (citing Williams v. Taylor 529 U.S. 420, 436 (2000)). As the Fifth Circuit has explained,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Id. (footnotes omitted and internal citation modified).

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Where multiple Section 2254 petitions attack the same judgment(s), a court "'looks to pre-AEDPA abuse of the writ principles in determining whether a petition is successive. '" Hardemon v. Quarterman 516 F. 3d 272, 275 (5th Cir. 2008) (quoting Crone v. Cockrell 324 F. 3d 833, 837 (5th Cir. 2003)); see id. ("We held that Crone's

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Page 3

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        petition was successive because he 'knew of all of the facts necessary to raise his second claim before he filed his initial federal petition. ' This holding aligned with our 'strong policy against piecemealing claims. '" (quoting Crone 324 F. 3d at 837)).

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                The Court must determine whether a subsequent federal habeas application is second or successive within the meaning of AEDPA to ensure that there is subject matter jurisdiction. See Leal Garcia 573 F. 3d at 219 ("AEDPA requires a prisoner to obtain authorization from the federal appellate court in his circuit before he may file a 'second or successive' petition for relief in federal district court. Without such authorization, the otherwise-cognizant district court has no jurisdiction to entertain a successive § 2254 petition. " (footnotes omitted)); see also Crone 324 F. 3d at 836 (collecting cases); cf. Linzy v. Faulk No. 14-cv-00962-BNB, 2014 WL 5355293, at *3 (D. Colo. Oct. 21, 2014) ("the one-year limitation period in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) is not jurisdictional, " and "there is no language in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) that would prohibit a court from bypassing the issue of timeliness if the claims asserted in the § 2254 Application are without merit" (citing Day v. McDonough 547 U.S. 198 205 (2006))).

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                A claim presented in a second or successive application under Section 2254 must be dismissed unless:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Page 4

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). But that determination must be made by a three-judge panel of the circuit court of appeals before a petitioner files an application in district court. See id. § 2244(b)(3); see also Garcia Briseno v. Dretke Ci v. A. No. L-05-08, 2007 WL 998743, at *2 (S. D. Tex. A.K. A.K. J.J. Marsh. 29, 2007) ("A circuit court preliminarily authorizes the filing of a successive action if a petitioner shows that it is 'reasonably likely' that his successive petition meets section 2244(b)'s 'stringent requirements. '" (quoting In re Morris 328 F. 3d 739, 740 (5th Cir. 2003))).

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Hobbs's current claims are successive within the meaning of AEDPA. And his failure to obtain leave from the Fifth Circuit under Section 2244(b)(3) before filing his current application "acts as a jurisdictional bar to this court's asserting jurisdiction over it until the Fifth Circuit grants him permission to file it. " United States v. Key 205 F. 3d 773, 774 (5th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted); accord Crone 324 F. 3d at 836; Williams v. Thaler 602 F. 3d 291, 301 (5th Cir. 2010). Thus,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        United States v. King Nos. 3: 97-cr-0083-D-01 & 3: 03-cv-1524-D, 2003 WL 21663712, at *1 (N.D. Tex. July 11, 2003) (citing Henderson v. Haro 282 F. 3d 862, 864 (5th Cir. 2002); In re Epps 127 F. 3d 364, 365 (5th Cir. 1997)), rec. adopted 3: 03-cv-1524-D, Dkt. No. 7 (N.D. Tex. July 28, 2003). Because this appears to be Hobbs's first successive

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Page 5

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        habeas application concerning this conviction, transfer appears appropriate.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Recommendation

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                The Court should transfer Hobbs's current habeas application to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for appropriate action.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                A copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation must file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the magistrate judge's findings, conclusions, and recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n 79 F. 3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                DATED: November 1, 2016

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                /s/_________        DAVID L. HORAN        UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Cited By
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Cites
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Negative Treatment
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Notes

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Please, select a date range