Patterson v. Director, TDCJ-CID

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
DRALON DURAN PATTERSON, §
TDCJ No. 2378876, §
§
Petitioner, §
§ No. 3:25-cv-2127-B-BN
V. §
§ Consolidated with
DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID, § No. 3:25-cv-2207-B-BN
§
Respondent. §
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Petitioner Dralon Duran Patterson, a Texas inmate, filed a pro se application
for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. And Senior United States District
Judge Jane J. Boyle referred the lawsuit to the undersigned United States
magistrate judge for pretrial management under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and a standing
order of reference.
The petition has not yet been served and briefed. But Patterson has now filed
two motions for partial summary judgment on Ground 29 of his petition. See Dkt.
Nos. 18, 22. And he has also filed a motion seeking an evidentiary hearing on and de
novo review of his claims for ineffective assistance of counsel. See Dkt. No. 17. The
undersigned construes this third motion as a motion for partial summary judgment
to the extent that it seeks a preliminary determination from the Court that “the state
court’s adjudication, ‘(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an
unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the
Supreme Court; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable
Case 3:25-cv-02127-B-BN Document 26 Filed 12/23/25 Page 1 of 4 PageID <pageID>

- 2 -
determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court
proceeding.’” Grace v. Hooper, 123 F.4th 800, 804 (5th Cir. 2024) (quoting 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(d)(1)-(2)).
As the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and other district
courts in this circuit have recognized, “[a]s a general principle, Rule 56 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, relating to summary judgment, applies with equal force in
the context of habeas corpus cases.” Ndudzi v. Castro, No. SA-20-CV-0492-JKP, 2020
WL 3317107, at *10 (W.D. Tex. June 18, 2020) (quoting Clark v. Johnson, 202 F.3d
760, 764 (5th Cir. 2000); collecting cases).
“But Rule 56 ‘applies only to the extent that it does not conflict with the habeas
rules.’” Id. (quoting Smith v. Cockrell, 311 F.3d 661, 668 (5th Cir. 2002), abrogated
on other grounds by Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274 (2004); citation omitted); see also
Habeas Rule 12 (“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to the extent that they are
not inconsistent with any statutory provision or these rules, may be applied to a
proceeding under these rules.”).
So, “[i]f some aspect of the summary judgment process conflicts with the
habeas process, then the habeas process controls. [But] the summary judgment
process may not result in a complete resolution of the habeas petition.” Ndudzi, 2020
WL 3317107, at *10 (citations omitted). Indeed, as the district court in Ndudzi
observed,
while motions for summary judgment may be used in the habeas
context, their use may not be the most prudent way to address a habeas
petition. Moreover, their use is expressly subject to the Court’s
discretion and direction provided in accordance with Habeas Rule 4.
Case 3:25-cv-02127-B-BN Document 26 Filed 12/23/25 Page 2 of 4 PageID <pageID>

- 3 -
After conducting the preliminary review required by Habeas Rule 4, the
Court serves the petition and issues an order directing “the respondent
to file an answer, motion, or other response within a fixed time, or to
take other action the judge may order.” This order controls the
subsequent filings and guides the habeas process through completion.
Habeas Rule 5 comes into play when the Court orders an answer.
Id.
This procedural summary also reflects the undersigned’s preferred approach
to resolving Section 2254 petitions.
Because the petition has not yet been briefed, Patterson’s motions for summary
judgment and motion for de novo review on the merits and an evidentiary hearing
[Dkt. Nos. 17, 18, 22] should be denied without prejudice as premature at this stage
of his Section 2254 proceeding.
Recommendation
The Court should deny without prejudice Petitioner Dralon Duran Pattersons’s
motions for summary judgment and motion for de novo review on the merits and an
evidentiary hearing [Dkt. Nos. 17, 18, 22].
A copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation shall be served on
all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these
findings, conclusions, 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). In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or
recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and
specify the place in the magistrate judge’s findings, conclusions, and recommendation
where the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by
Case 3:25-cv-02127-B-BN Document 26 Filed 12/23/25 Page 3 of 4 PageID <pageID>

- 4 -
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 Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).
DATED: December 23, 2025
_________________________________________
DAVID L. HORAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-02127-B-BN Document 26 Filed 12/23/25 Page 4 of 4 PageID <pageID>