Twiss v. Gutierrez, No. 3:2018cv01702 - Document 20 (N.D. Tex. 2018)
Court Description: Order Adopting 10 Findings and Recommendations on Case re: 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Thomas Twiss. (Ordered by Judge Sidney A Fitzwater on 8/30/2018) (aaa)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Twiss v. Gutierrez Doc. 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION THOMAS TWISS (TDCJ No. 298093), Petitioner, V. LORIE DAVIS, Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent. § § § § § § § § § § § § No. 3:18-CV-1702-D ORDER After making an independent review of the pleadings, files, and records in this case, the July 3, 2018 findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the magistrate judge, and petitioner’s July 16, 2018 opposition, the court concludes that the findings and conclusions are correct. It is therefore ordered that the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the magistrate judge are adopted, and the petition for habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is dismissed with prejudice. Petitioner’s August 2, 2018 motion for a deposition is denied. His habeas petition filed on August 2, 2018 does not alter the court’s ruling on the habeas petition that initiated this case on June 22, 2018. Considering the record in this case and pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 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 Dockets.Justia.com 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). If petitioner files a notice of appeal, ( ) petitioner may proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. (X) petitioner must pay the $505.00 appellate filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. SO ORDERED. August 30, 2018. _________________________________ SIDNEY A. FITZWATER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -2-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
