Neri v. Director, TDCJ-CID

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
JAIME RODRIGUEZ NERI, §
#1678471, §
PETITIONER, §
§
V. § CIVIL CASE NO. 3:25-CV-1543-L-BK
§
DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID, §
RESPONDENT. §
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Special Order 3, Petitioner Jaime Rodriguez Neri’s
pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 was referred to the United
States Magistrate Judge for case management, including the issuance of findings and a
recommended disposition. As detailed here, the successive habeas petition should be
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction.
I. BACKGROUND
In 2010, Neri pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual assault and was sentenced to 30 years’
imprisonment. State v. Neri, Nos. F09-58674 (Crim. Dist. Ct. No. 7, Dallas Cnty., Tex., Aug.
11, 2010); Doc. 10 at 2 (Am. Pet.). His direct criminal appeal was dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction. Neri v. State, No. 05-10-01373-CR (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 8, 2011); Doc. 10 at 3.
Although Neri did not file a state habeas application, he unsuccessfully challenged his conviction
in a federal habeas proceeding in this Court, which was dismissed with prejudice as time barred.
See Neri v. Director, No. 3:24cv1378-E-BT, 2024 WL 3836562 (N.D. Tex. Jul. 22, 2024), rec.
adopted, No. 3:24cv1378-E-BT, 2024 WL 3841484 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 14, 2024). Neri then filed a
Case 3:25-cv-01543-L-BK Document 17 Filed 01/27/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID <pageID>

2
state habeas application, which was denied without written order. Ex parte Neri, No. WR-
89,599-02 (Tex. Crim. App. Dec. 18, 2024); Doc. 10 at 4.
On June 4, 2024, Neri, then a state prisoner1, filed his second federal habeas petition
again challenging his underlying conviction. Doc. 10 at 2. He raises 11 grounds for relief,
reiterating some allegations presented in his earlier federal petition. Doc. 10 at 6-16. But Neri
has not obtained the prior authorization of the appellate court to file a successive application, as
required.
II. ANALYSIS
28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) limits the circumstances under which a petitioner may file a second
or successive application for federal habeas relief. In general, to raise a new claim, the petitioner
must show that the successive application is based on: (1) a new rule of constitutional law made
retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court; or (2) newly discovered evidence
that, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by
clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable fact finder would have found him guilty of the
offense. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). Before a petitioner may file his application in the district
court, however, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
must determine whether the application makes the requisite prima facie showing. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(b)(3)(A) and (B). Section 2244(b)(3)(A) constitutes a bar to the district court’s
jurisdiction to consider a successive habeas petition unless the Court of Appeals has first granted
the petitioner permission to file such a petition. United States v. Key, 205 F.3d 773, 774 (5th Cir.
1 Although Neri has yet to inform the Court of his address change, records available online—of
which the Court takes judicial notice—confirm he is no longer confined in Texas Department of
Criminal Justice (TDCJ). See https://inmate.tdcj.texas.gov/InmateSearch (last accessed on Jan.
27, 2026).
Case 3:25-cv-01543-L-BK Document 17 Filed 01/27/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID <pageID>

3
2000) (per curiam) (§ 2255 motion); see also Crone v. Cockrell, 324 F.3d 833, 836 (5th Cir.
2003) (§ 2254 habeas petition).
Here, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has not issued an order
authorizing this Court to consider Neri’s successive petition. Neri must obtain such an order
before he can file a successive application challenging his conviction. And because Neri has not
informed the court of his current, dismissal without prejudice for want of jurisdiction—rather
than transfer—is appropriate. See In re Epps, 127 F.3d 364, 365 (5th Cir. 1997) (per curiam);
Crone, 324 F.3d at 838.
III. CONCLUSION
For all these reasons, Neri’s successive habeas petition should be DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction because he has not obtained authorization to
file a successive habeas petition from the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. §
2244(b)(3).
SO RECOMMENDED on January 27, 2026.
Case 3:25-cv-01543-L-BK Document 17 Filed 01/27/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID <pageID>

4
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). An objection must identify the finding or recommendation to which objection is
made, the basis for the objection, and the place in the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation 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 Servs. Auto. 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 object
to 14 days).
Case 3:25-cv-01543-L-BK Document 17 Filed 01/27/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID <pageID>