Nowland v. US District Court for the District of Columbia

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION
JOSHUA NOWLAND 	§
VS. 	§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:25cv333
DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID 	§
ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Joshua Nowland, an inmate at the Wallace Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, filed the above-styled petition for writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 	In 2013, petitioner was convicted of aggravated
robbery.
The Court previously referred this matter to the Honorable Christine L. Stetson, United
States Magistrate Judge, for consideration pursuant to applicable orders of this Court. 	The
Magistrate Judge has submitted a Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge
recommending the petition be dismissed as successive.
The Court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge, along with the record and pleadings. Petitioner filed objections to the Report and
Recommendation. The Court must therefore conduct a de novo review of the objections in relation
to the pleadings and the applicable law.
In his objections, petitioner states he is not challenging the conviction described above.
Instead, he is informing the Court of crimes that have been committed against him. Petitioner states
that on May 25, 2022, he sent a petition for writ of mandamus, along with a motion to proceed
informa pauperis, to the Supreme Court. He asserts he sent copies of his petition to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and two state district judges in Jefferson County, Texas.
Petitioner alleges a forged appeal was received by the Supreme Court on June 17, 2022. He states
he did not authorize anyone to write a petition for mandamus or forge an appeal. Petitioner contends
only the Fifth Circuit and the two state district judges knew about the petition. He asserts the state
Case 1:25-cv-00333-MJT-CLS Document 14 Filed 01/27/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

district judges forged his appeal and that as a result of this alleged obstruction of justice, he should
be released.
Title 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(2) provides that a writ of habeas corpus may be granted if a
petitioner demonstrates he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the
United States. Even if petitioner’s allegations regarding an appeal being forged are accepted as true,
they would not demonstrate he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the
United States. As a result, petitioner is not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus. His petition should
therefore be dismissed without prejudice.
ORDER
Accordingly, petitioner’s objections [Dkt. 9] are OVERRULED. 	The report of the
Magistrate Judge [Dkt. 8] is ADOPTED to the extent it recommends the petition be dismissed
without prejudice. A final judgment will be entered dismissing the petition.
In addition, the Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to a certificate of
appealability. An appeal from a judgment denying federal habeas relief may not proceed unless a
judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253. The standard that must be met in
order to receive a certificate of appealability requires the petitioner to make a substantial showing
of the denial of a federal constitutional right. 	See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 583-84 (2000);
Elizalde v. Dretke, 362 F.3d 323, 328 (5th Cir. 2004). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner
is not required to demonstrate that he would prevail on the merits. Rather, he need only demonstrate
that the issues are subject to debate among jurists of reason, that a court could resolve the issues in
a different manner, or that the questions presented in the petition are worthy of encouragement to
proceed further. See Slack, 529 U.S. at 483-84. Any doubt regarding whether to grant a certificate
of appealability should be resolved in favor of the petitioner, and the severity of the penalty may be
considered in making this determination. See Miller v. Johnson, 200 F.3d 274, 280-81 (5th Cir.
2000).
2
Case 1:25-cv-00333-MJT-CLS Document 14 Filed 01/27/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

In this case, the petitioner has not shown that the issue of whether his petition provides him
with a basis for relief is subject to debate among jurists of reason. The factual and legal questions
raised by petitioner have been consistently resolved adversely to his position and the questions
presented are not worthy of encouragement to proceed further. 	As a result, a certificate of
appealability shall not issue in this matter.
3
____________________________
Michael J. Truncale
United States District Judge
SIGNED this 27th day of January, 2026.
Case 1:25-cv-00333-MJT-CLS Document 14 Filed 01/27/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>