Hardeman v. Enge

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
LONEL HARDEMAN, JR, 	§
ID # 01304645, 	§
Petitioner, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	No. 3:26-CV-535-X-BW
§
JAMADRE L. ENGE, 	§
Respondent. 	§ 	Referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge1
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before the Court is the Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas
Corpus by a Person in State Custody, received on February 17, 2026. (Dkt. No. 3.)
Based on the relevant filings and applicable law, the Court should DISMISS the
petition without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
I. BACKGROUND
Lonel Hardeman, Jr., a prisoner of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
Correctional Institutions Division, filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
challenging a 2005 conviction and 30-year sentence in Dallas County, Texas. (See id.
at 1.) He names the warden of his unit of incarceration as the respondent. (See id.)
In 2005, a jury convicted Hardeman of robbery and the trial court sentenced
him to 30 years of imprisonment in Case No. F-0473170-T in the 283rd Judicial
District Court of Dallas County, Texas. State v. Hardeman, No. F-0473170-T (283rd
1 By Special Order No. 3-251, this habeas case has been automatically referred for
full case management.
Case 3:26-cv-00535-X-BW Document 6 Filed 02/24/26 Page 1 of 6 PageID <pageID>

2
Jud. Dist. Ct., Dallas Cnty., Tex. Jan 11, 2005). The Texas Fifth Court of Appeals
affirmed the judgment on direct appeal. See Hardeman v. State, No. 05-05-00113-CR,
2006 WL 391308 (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 21, 2006, pet. ref’d). The Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals (“TCCA”) refused Hardeman’s petition for discretionary review.
Hardeman v. State, No. PD-0368-06 (Tex. Crim. App. May 17, 2006).
After unsuccessfully pursuing state habeas relief, Hardeman filed his first
federal § 2254 petition in this Court on February 1, 2010. See Hardeman v. Thaler,
No. 3:10-CV-197-P, Dkt. No. 1 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 7, 2011); Ex parte Hardeman, No.
WR-50,981-05 (Tex. Crim. App. Nov. 5, 2008). The § 2254 petition was denied with
prejudice as barred by the statute of limitations. See Hardeman, No. 3:10-CV-197-P,
Dkt. Nos. 15, 18-19. On August 3, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit (“Fifth Circuit”) denied a certificate of appealability. See Hardeman v.
Thaler, No. 11-10322, Dkt. No. 24 (5th Cir. Aug. 3, 2011).
On July 16, 2025, Hardeman filed a second state habeas application
challenging his 2005 robbery conviction, which remains pending in the state trial
court. See Ex parte Hardeman, No. W-0473170-B (283rd Jud. Dist. Ct., Dallas Cnty.,
Tex. July 16, 2025). Despite his pending state habeas application, Hardeman filed
this federal § 2254 petition again challenging his 2005 robbery conviction in Case
No. F-0473170-T. (Dkt. No. 3.) He asserts the following grounds for relief:
(1) “withholding evidence that[’]s favorable to the defendant”; (2) “5th [,] 6th , 14th
constitutional violation due process”; (3) “multiple representation”; and (4)
Case 3:26-cv-00535-X-BW Document 6 Filed 02/24/26 Page 2 of 6 PageID <pageID>

3
“misdeed – misrepresentation.”2 (Id. at 5, 7-8, 10 (capitalization altered).)
II. JURISDICTION
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that
power authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by
judicial decree.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)
(internal citations omitted). They “must presume that a suit lies outside this limited
jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction rests on the party
seeking the federal forum.” Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912, 916 (5th Cir.
2001). Courts have “a continuing obligation to examine the basis for their
jurisdiction.” MCG, Inc. v. Great W. Energy Corp., 896 F.2d 170, 173 (5th Cir. 1990).
A district court cannot exercise jurisdiction over a second or successive § 2254
petition without authorization from the appropriate court of appeals. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(b); Crone v. Cockrell, 324 F.3d 833, 836 (5th Cir. 2003). A petition is
successive if it raises a claim that was or could have been raised in an earlier petition
or otherwise constitutes an abuse of the writ. See Hardemon v. Quarterman, 516 F.3d
272, 275 (5th Cir. 2008) (quoting In re Cain, 137 F.3d 234, 235 (5th Cir. 1998)). If it
essentially represents a second attack on the same conviction raised in an earlier
petition, a petition is successive. See id. at 275-76. Although a prior § 2254 petition is
not successive if it was dismissed due to prematurity or for lack of exhaustion, a
dismissal based on the statute of limitations, as in Hardeman’s first § 2254 petition, is
2 The Court notes that because Hardeman’s state habeas application raising these
claims remains pending in the state trial court, the claims appear to be unexhausted for
purposes of federal habeas review.
Case 3:26-cv-00535-X-BW Document 6 Filed 02/24/26 Page 3 of 6 PageID <pageID>

4
considered an adjudication on the merits for purposes of determining successiveness.
See, e.g., Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 487-88 (2000) (declining to construe an
application as second or successive when it followed a previous dismissal due to a
failure to exhaust state remedies); Higginbotham v. Barnes, No. 21-60601, 2022 WL
795433, at *1 (5th Cir. Mar. 15, 2022) (citing In re Flowers, 595 F.3d 204, 205 (5th
Cir. 2009)).
Here, Hardeman challenges the same 2005 conviction that he challenged in a
prior federal petition that was dismissed with prejudice on its merits. See Hardeman,
No. 3:10-CV-197-P, Dkt. Nos. 15, 18-19. Under Hardemon and Crone, Hardeman
was required to present all available claims in that petition. A claim is available
when it “could have been raised had the petitioner exercised due diligence.” Leonard
v. Dretke, No. 3:02-CV-0578-H, 2004 WL 741286, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 5, 2004), rec.
adopted, 2004 WL 884578 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2004). The crucial question in
determining availability is whether Hardeman knew or should have known through
the exercise of due diligence the facts necessary to his current claims when he filed
his prior, time-barred federal petition challenging the same conviction and sentence.
Hardeman’s § 2254 petition is successive within the meaning of § 2244(b)
because it raises claims that were or could have been raised in that prior federal
petition. When a petition is second or successive, the petitioner must seek an order
from the Fifth Circuit that authorizes this Court to consider the petition. See 28
U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). The Fifth Circuit “may authorize the filing of a second or
successive application only if it determines that the application makes a prima facie
Case 3:26-cv-00535-X-BW Document 6 Filed 02/24/26 Page 4 of 6 PageID <pageID>

5
showing that the application satisfies the requirements of [§ 2244(b)].” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(b)(3)(C). To present a claim in a second or successive habeas petition that
was not presented in a prior petition, the petition must show that it is based on: (1) “a
new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the
Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable”; or (2) “the factual predicate for the
claim could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due
diligence; and [ ] the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of the
evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing
evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found
the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2).
Because the Fifth Circuit has not issued an order authorizing this Court to
consider a successive § 2254 petition, it lacks jurisdiction to consider Hardeman’s
petition, and the petition is subject to dismissal. See United States v. Fulton, 780 F.3d
683, 686 (5th Cir. 2015). “Alternatively, a district court may transfer a petition
lacking authorization to [the Fifth Circuit] for want of jurisdiction upon a finding
that the petition is successive.” Id. Here, because Hardeman’s state habeas
proceedings on the claims he raises in this § 2254 action remain pending—and
therefore appear to be unexhausted—dismissal, rather than transfer is warranted.
III. RECOMMENDATION
The Court should DISMISS the Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of
Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody, received on February 17, 2026 (Dkt.
No. 3), for lack of jurisdiction without prejudice to Hardeman’s right to file a motion
Case 3:26-cv-00535-X-BW Document 6 Filed 02/24/26 Page 5 of 6 PageID <pageID>

6
for leave to file a successive § 2254 petition in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit.
SO RECOMMENDED on February 24, 2026.
____________________________________
BRIAN McKAY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT
A copy of this report and recommendation will be served on all parties in the
manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of this report 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). To be specific,
an objection must identify the finding or recommendation to which objection is
made, state the basis for the objection, and indicate the place in the magistrate
judge’s report 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 Services Automobile Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415,
1417 (5th Cir. 1996), modified by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
(extending the time to file objections to 14 days).
Case 3:26-cv-00535-X-BW Document 6 Filed 02/24/26 Page 6 of 6 PageID <pageID>