Johnson v. United States of America

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 4:25-cv-00389 Document14_ Filed 03/30/26 in TXSD Pagelof3
United States District Court

Southem District of Texas

ENTERED

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT March 30, 2026
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk

HOUSTON DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Respondent,
CRIM NO. 4:22-cr-0635

v. CIV. NO. 4:25-cv-0389

MALIK JOHNSON,

MMMM MMm Mm Mm mM

Defendant-Movant.

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pending is Defendant-Movant Malik Johnson’s Motion to Vacate
his Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Docket No. 10; Amended Motion
to Vacate his Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Docket No. 9); and
Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Docket No. 10). The Court
has received from the Magistrate Judge a Memorandum = and
Recommendation, recommending that Johnson’s motions be denied.

Johnson did not file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s
Memorandum and Recommendations (Docket No. 13). The Court, after
having made a de novo determination of Johnson’s Amended motion to
vacate, correct, or modify his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, is
of the opinion that the findings and recommendations of the
Magistrate Judge are correct and should be and hereby are accepted

by the Court. It is therefore

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

Case 4:25-cv-00389 Document14_ Filed 03/30/26 in TXSD Page 2of3

ORDERED and ADJUDGED for the reasons set forth in the
Memorandum and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate
Judge entered on February 25, 2026, which is adopted in its
entirety as the opinion of the Court, that Johnson’s § 2255 Amended
Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (Document No. 9)
is DENIED, his application to proceed in forma pauperis is denied
as moot and this § 2255 proceeding is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
It is further

ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. A
certificate of appealability from a habeas corpus proceeding will
not issue unless the petitioner makes “a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This
standard “includes showing that reasonable jurists could debate
whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have
been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented
were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack

v. McDaniel, 120 S. Ct. 1595, 1603-1604 (2000) (internal quotations

and citations omitted). Stated differently, where the claims
have been dismissed on the merits, the petitioner “must demonstrate

that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment

of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Id. at 1604;
Beazley v. Johnson, 242 F.3d 248, 263 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
122 S.Ct. 329 (2001). When the claims have been dismissed on

procedural grounds, the petitioner must show that “jurists of
reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid

2

Case 4:25-cv-00389 Document14_ Filed 03/30/26 in TXSD Page 3of3

claim of the denial of constitutional right and that jurists
of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was
correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack, 120 S.Ct. at 1604. A
district court may deny a certificate of appealability sua sponte,

without requiring further briefing or argument. Alexander v.

Johnson, 211 F.3d 895, 8998 (5th Cir. 2000).

For the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation,
which has been adopted as the opinion of the Court, the Court
finds that reasonable jurists would not find debatable the
substantive or procedural determinations made herein. Thus, a
certificate of appealability is DENIED.

The Clerk will enter this Order, providing a correct copy to

all parties of record. of

, It
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this FO day of March, 2026.

—, Ub berw;
LT ,]

EWING @BRLEIN, UR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE