Murphy v. Guerrero

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
JOHN ELDRIDGE MURPHY,
(TDCJ # 02378001),
Petitioner,
vs.
ERIC GUERRERO,
Respondent.
§
§
§
§
§
§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. H-26-5756
§
§
§
§
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The petitioner, John Eldridge Murphy, (TDCJ #02378001), is an inmate in
custody of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Correctional Institutions
Division. 	He has filed a petition, apparently under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging
his state-court judgment of conviction. 	(Dkt. 1). 	Under Rule 4 of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Proceedings in the United States District Courts, the Court
is required to review a petition for federal habeas corpus relief and dismiss it if" [i]t
plainly appears from the petition ... that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." After
considering Murphy's petition, all matters of record, and the law, the Court
dismisses his petition for the reason explained below.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Murphy is currently incarcerated based on a conviction for assault on a family
or household member by one with previous convictions. 	See Inmate Search,
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
August 03, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-05756 Document 4 Filed 08/03/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 7

www.tdcj.texas.gov (visited Aug. 1, 2026). 	He has filed a pleading titled as a
"petition,"in which he seeks "Redress for Improper Conditions ofConfmement, to
Challenge the Legality of Confinement under 14th and 5th Amendment Due Process
Clauses." (Dkt. 1, p. 1). 	His allegations are difficult to decipher, but he generally
alleges that he was arrested for assault and domestic violence in two separate cases,
but that the arrests were untimely under Texas law. 	(Id. at 2). 	He also seems to
allege that he was arrested for violating a protective order that had expired. 	(Id).
He asserts that he is innocent of those charges and therefore his current detention,
which is based in part on those convictions, constitutes "terrorism." (Id. at 3). 	As
relief, he seeks his immediate release from TDCJ custody. 	(Id. at 1).
II. 	DISCUSSION
A. 	Habeas Corpus Claims
Murphy's petition is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death
Penalty Act (AEDPA). 28 U.S.C. § 2254; see also Woodfordv. Garceau, 538 U.S.
202,207 (2003); Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 335-36 (1997). "Under AEDPA,
a state prisoner always gets one chance to bring a federal habeas challenge to his
conviction." 	Banister v. Davis, 590 U.S. 504, 509 (2020) (citing Magwood v.
Patterson, 561 U.S. 320, 333-34 (2010)). However, to file a second or successive
petition, the petitioner "must first obtain leave from the court of appeals based on a
'prima 	facie 	showing' 	that 	his 	petition 	satisfies 	[AEDPA]'s 	gatekeeping
2/7
Case 4:26-cv-05756 Document 4 Filed 08/03/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 7

requirements." 	Id. 	A prisoner may not bring claims "presented in a prior
application," 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(l), and "may bring a new claim only ... if [the
petition] relies on a new and retroactive rule of constitutional law or if it alleges
previously undiscoverable facts that would establish his innocence." Id. ( citing 28
U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)). A district court cannot consider any claim, even a new one,
in a second or successive petition without an order from the court of appeals
authorizing the district court to do 	so. 	See 	§ 2244(b)(3)(A). 	Absent such
authorization, the action must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Court records show that Murphy filed a previous petition for writ of habeas
corpus, which was denied on its merits. See Murphy v. Guerrero, No. 4:24-cv-1262
(S.D. Tex. Dec. 2, 2025). Review of that petition shows that it raised the same claims
concerning the validity of his underlying convictions and their effect on his current .
conviction that are raised in this petition. Thus, because Murphy has challenged this
same conviction in a previous federal habeas corpus petition and because the same
issues he raises here were also raised in that petition, his current petition is
successive. Hem ust therefore seek authorization from the Fifth Circuit before this
Court may consider it. See28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). This Courthasnorecordof
an order from the Fifth Circuit authorizing Murphy to.file a successive petition, and
he has not alerted the Court to the existence of such an order. Because Murphy has
not obtained such authorization, his current petition must be dismissed as successive.
3/7
Case 4:26-cv-05756 Document 4 Filed 08/03/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 7

B. 	Civil-Rights Claims
In addition to his claims challenging the validity of his conviction and
sentence, Murphy briefly states that TDCJ officials are denying him access to the
courts, denying him due process, and violating his equal protection rights. (Dkt. 1,
p. 3). He alleges no facts in support of these claims, and the only relief he seeks for
these alleged violations is release from confinement.
Federal 	law 	provides 	two 	distinct avenues 	for 	relief for 	claims 	of
unconstitutional treatment at the hands of state officials: a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus seeking release from custody, and a civil-rights action seeking
equitable or monetary relief. 	See Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004)
(per curiam);seealsoHeckv. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477,480 (1994). Both types of
proceedings "provide a federal forum for claims of unconstitutional treatment at the
hands of state officials, but they differ in their scope and operation." H eek, 512 U.S.
at 480. 	Habeas corpus petitions challenge the validity of a conviction or sentence
and are "the exclusive remedy for a state prisoner who challenges the fact or duration
of his confinement and seeks immediate or speedier release." . Id. at 481 (citing
Preiserv. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475,500 (1973)). Civil-rights actions challenge the
conditions of confinement and seek either injunctive relief to end the condition or
money damages to compensate for the violations. 	Muhammad, 540 U.S. at 750
(citing Preiser, 411 U.S. at 500). 	Unconstitutional conditions of confinement, no
4/7
Case 4:26-cv-05756 Document 4 Filed 08/03/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 7

matter how serious they may be, do not warrant release from custody. See Sperzcer
v. Bragg, 310 F. App'x 678, 679 (5th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
Murphy alleges no facts to support what appear to be claims for denial of
access to the courts, due process violations, and violations of the Equal Protection
Clause. 	Further, those claims, such as they are, challenge the conditions of his
confinement rather than its fact or duration. They must therefore be raised in a civil-
rights action under §1983 rather than a petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking
release. 	These claims are improperly raised in this action and will be dismissed.
Such dismissal is without prejudice to Murphy bringing these claims in a separate
civil-rights action should he wish to pursue one.
III. 	CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Habeas corpus actions under § 2254 require a certificate of appealability to
proceed on appeal. 	28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(l); Miller-Elv. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,
335-36 (2003). 	Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires a
district court to issue or deny a certificate of appealability when entering a final order
that is adverse to the petitioner. 	To be entitled to a certificate of appealability, the
petitioner must make "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,"
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), which requires a petitioner to demonstrate "that reasonable
jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims
debatable or wrong." Tennardv. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274,276 (2004) (quoting Slack
5/7
Case 4:26-cv-05756 Document 4 Filed 08/03/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 7

v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 	When the denial of relief is based on
procedural grounds, the petitioner must show not only that "jurists of reason would
find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a
constitutional right," but also that they "would find it debatable whether the district
court was correct in its procedural ruling." Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. A district court
may deny a certificate of appealability, sua sponte, without requiring further briefing
or argument. 	See Alexander v. Johnson, 211 F.3d 895, 898 (5th Cir. 2000) (per
curiam).
Because Murphy has not shown that reasonable jurists would find the Court's
resolution of the constitutional issues debatable or wrong, this Court will not issue a
certificate of appealability.
IV. 	CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. 	Murphy's petition for writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. 1) is DISMISSED
without prejudice as successive.
2. 	Murphy's claims appearing to seek release based on conditions of
confinement are DISMISSED without prejudice to him pursuing them in a separate
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
3. 	Any pending motions are DENIED as moot.
4. 	A certificate of appealability is DENIED.
6/7
Case 4:26-cv-05756 Document 4 Filed 08/03/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 7

The Clerk will provide a copy of this Order to the petitioner.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on 	~ 	S 	, 2026.
~~DAv!DHITTNER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I
7/7
Case 4:26-cv-05756 Document 4 Filed 08/03/26 in TXSD Page 7 of 7