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. §
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the Findings,
Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and any objections
thereto, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court is of the opinion that the Findings
and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and they are accepted as the Findings and
Conclusions of the Court. For the reasons stated in the Findings, Conclusions, and
Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, 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), will be DISMISSED by separate judgment for lack of jurisdiction without prejudice to the
petitioner’s right to file a motion for leave to file a successive § 2254 petition in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
In accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 22(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) and after considering
the record in this case and the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the petitioner is
DENIED a Certificate of Appealability. The Court adopts and incorporates by reference the
Magistrate Judge’s Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation in support of its finding that the
petitioner has failed to show (1) that reasonable jurists would find this Court’s “assessment of the
Case 3:26-cv-00535-X-BW Document 7 Filed 03/16/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID <pageID>

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).1
In the event that the petitioner files a notice of appeal, he must pay the $605.00 appellate
filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis that is accompanied by a properly
signed certificate of inmate trust account.
SIGNED this 16th day of March, 2026.
__________________________________
BRANTLEY STARR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1 Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, as amended
effective on December 1, 2019, reads as follows:
(a) Certificate of Appealability. The district court must issue or deny a certificate of
appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant. Before entering the final order,
the court may direct the parties to submit arguments on whether a certificate should issue. If the
court issues a certificate, the court must state the specific issue or issues that satisfy the showing
required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). If the court denies a certificate, the parties may not appeal the
denial but may seek a certificate from the court of appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 22. A motion to reconsider a denial does not extend the time to appeal.
(b) Time to Appeal. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) governs the time to appeal an order
entered under these rules. A timely notice of appeal must be filed even if the district court issues a
certificate of appealability.
Case 3:26-cv-00535-X-BW Document 7 Filed 03/16/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID <pageID>