Owens v. Castleberry

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
ROBERT OWENS, 	§
ID # 2251388, 	§
Petitioner, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	No. 3:25-CV-2925-S-BW
§
WARDEN CASTLEBERRY, 	§
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 October 29, 2025. (Dkt. No. 3.)
Based on the relevant filings and applicable law, the Court should SUMMARILY
DISMISS the petition without prejudice.
I. BACKGROUND
Robert Owens, a prisoner of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
Correctional Institutions Division (“TDCJ-CID”), filed a habeas petition under 28
U.S.C. § 2254 in connection with three state convictions and sentences from Hunt
County, Texas. (See id. at 1.) He names the warden of his unit of incarceration as
the respondent. (See id.)
A jury convicted Owens of possession of child pornography in Cause Nos.
32,437CR, 32,438CR, and 32,440CR in the 196th District Court of Hunt County,
1 By Special Order No. 3-251, this habeas case has been automatically referred for
full case management.
Case 3:25-cv-02925-S-BW Document 8 Filed 01/30/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID <pageID>

2
Texas; the jury sentenced him to 20 years of imprisonment in the TDCJ-CID on
each conviction. See Owens v. State, 591 S.W.3d 203, 205 (Tex. App.—Texarkana
2019, no pet.); Owens v. State, No. 06-19-00021-CR, 2019 WL 5996386, at *1 (Tex.
App.—Texarkana Nov. 14, 2019, no pet.); Owens v. State, No. 06-19-00022-CR, 2019
WL 5996356, at *1 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Nov. 14, 2019, no pet.). The
convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal. See id. Owens did not file
a petition for discretionary review (“PDR”) of the state appellate decisions with the
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (“TCCA”). (See Dkt. No. 3 at 2.)
Over five years later, on May 30, 2025, Owens filed a state habeas application
in the state trial court as to each of his convictions. See Ex parte Owens, Nos.
WRIT13688, WRIT13689, WRIT13690 (196th Dist. Ct., Hunt Cnty., Tex. May 30,
2025). On September 3, 2025, the TCCA denied the state habeas applications
without written order. See Ex parte Owens, Nos. WR-96,856-01, WR-96,856-02, WR-
96,856-03 (Tex. Crim. App. Sept. 3, 2025). In his current § 2254 petition, Owens
asserts one ground for relief: “[Requesting out of time PDR] The State violated my
14th USCA rights by denying full & fair litigation § 2254(d)(1)(2).” (Dkt. No. 3 at 5
(capitalization altered and bracketed text in original).)
II. SUMMARY DISMISSAL
Under Rule 4 of the of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United
States District Courts, “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached
exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must
dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.” “Federal habeas
Case 3:25-cv-02925-S-BW Document 8 Filed 01/30/26 Page 2 of 5 PageID <pageID>

3
relief cannot be had ‘absent the allegation by a plaintiff that he or she has been
deprived of some right secured to him or her by the United States Constitution or the
laws of the United States.’” Malchi v. Thaler, 211 F.3d 953, 957 (5th Cir. 2000)
(quoting Orellana v. Kyle, 65 F.3d 29, 31 (5th Cir. 1995)).
Even when liberally construed, Owens’s allegations do not present a
cognizable basis for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In his petition, Owens complains
about the State’s single-paragraph response to his state habeas applications seeking
an out-of-time PDR, wherein the State “demand[ed] strict proof” of the allegations
in Owens’s state habeas applications. (Dkt. No. 3 at 22; see also id. at 5-7.) He
contends that the State’s response to his state habeas applications “requiring ‘strict
proof’ after proof was submitted suggests that Petitioner’s 14 th USCA rights were
violated by an abuse of discre[]tion that was objectively unreasonable[.]” (Id. at 6-7
(capitalization altered).) He posits that the response “gives an appearance of
litigation and a con[s]tituional right and Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof,
but proof was provided.” (Id. at 7 (emphasis omitted and capitalization altered).)
Owens also takes issue with the state habeas court’s “boiler plated [ ] denial
parroting the State’s D.A. without building a record or providing factual
development which was specifically requested or an evidentiary hearing.” (Id. at 6
(capitalization altered); see also id. at 7-10, 19.) According to Owens, “the standard of
proof is ‘the preponderance’ of evidence – either petitioner met this burden or he
established enough proof to receive the ability to establish it via factual
develop[]ment and/or an evidentiary hearing.” (Id. at 6 (capitalization altered).) He
Case 3:25-cv-02925-S-BW Document 8 Filed 01/30/26 Page 3 of 5 PageID <pageID>

4
contends that the state habeas court “failed to systematically scrutinize the relevant
[proof provided\facts] in his 11.07 by following the DA’s demand for ‘strict proof,’”
and “erred in its application of the legal standards and didn’t state specifically why
his [proof] submitted failed to meet the rules to receive the ability to expand the
record with factual development and\or an evidentiary hearing.” (Id. at 8 (bracketed
text in original and capitalization altered).)
Owens’s allegations only challenge alleged errors and shortcomings of the
state habeas proceedings. “An attack on a state habeas proceeding does not entitle
the petitioner to [federal] habeas relief in respect to his conviction, as it ‘is an attack
on a proceeding collateral to the detention and not the detention itself.’” Nichols v.
Scott, 69 F.3d 1255, 1275 (5th Cir. 1995) (citations omitted); see also Brown v. Dretke,
419 F.3d 365, 378 (5th Cir. 2005) (“[A]lleged infirmities in state habeas proceedings
are not grounds for federal habeas relief.”). Owens alleges no grounds for relief or
facts collaterally challenging the validity of the state convictions pursuant to which
he is currently in custody, and “errors in a state habeas proceeding cannot serve as a
basis for setting aside a valid original conviction.”2 Nichols, 69 F.3d at 1275.
Accordingly, because the petition does not allege any cognizable basis for
relief under § 2254, the Court should summarily dismiss it on this basis.
2 Even if Owens had asserted grounds for relief challenging the validity of his
underlying state court convictions, such claims are likely barred by the applicable statute of
limitations.
Case 3:25-cv-02925-S-BW Document 8 Filed 01/30/26 Page 4 of 5 PageID <pageID>

5
III. RECOMMENDATION
The Court should SUMMARILY DISMISS the Petition Under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody, received on October
29, 2025 (Dkt. No. 3), without prejudice.
SO RECOMMENDED on January 30, 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 3:25-cv-02925-S-BW Document 8 Filed 01/30/26 Page 5 of 5 PageID <pageID>