Porter v. Director, TDCJ-CID

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
STEVEN RAY PORTER, §
§
Petitioner, §
§
versus § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:25-CV-368
§
DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID, §
§
Respondent. §
ORDER OVERRULING PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Steven Ray Porter, a prisoner in the custody of the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division (TDCJ-CID), proceeding pro se, filed this
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
The court referred this matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate
Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this court.
The magistrate judge has submitted a Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge. The magistrate judge recommends denying the petition.
The court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge, along with the record, pleadings, and all available evidence. Petitioner filed
objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation.
The court has conducted a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and
the applicable law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). After careful consideration, the court concludes
the objections are without merit. Petitioner’s claim that he was improperly denied release on
Case 1:25-cv-00368-MAC-ZJH Document 7 Filed 01/30/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

parole is not cognizable in a federal habeas petition because he does not have a constitutionally-
protected right to release on parole.
In this case, Petitioner is not entitled to the issuance of a certificate of appealability. An
appeal from a judgment denying federal habeas corpus relief may not proceed unless a judge issues
a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; FED. R. APP. P. 22(b). The standard for
granting a certificate of appealability, like that for granting a certificate of probable cause to appeal
under prior law, requires Petitioner to make a substantial showing of the denial of a federal
constitutional right. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000); Elizalde v. Dretke, 362
F.3d 323, 328 (5th Cir. 2004); see also Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1982). In making
that substantial showing, Petitioner need not establish that he should prevail on the merits. Rather,
he must demonstrate that the issues are subject to debate among jurists of reason, that a court
could resolve the issues in a different manner, or that the questions presented are worthy of
encouragement to proceed further. Slack, 529 U.S. at 483-84. If the petition was denied on
procedural grounds, Petitioner must show that jurists of reason would find it debatable:
(1) whether the petition raises a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right, and (2) whether
the district court was correct in its procedural ruling. Id. at 484; Elizalde, 362 F.3d at 328. Any
doubt regarding whether to grant a certificate of appealability is resolved in favor of Petitioner,
and the severity of the penalty may be considered in making this determination. See Miller v.
Johnson, 200 F.3d 274, 280-81 (5th Cir. 2000).
Here, Petitioner has not shown that any of the issues raised by his claims are subject to
debate among jurists of reason, or that the procedural ruling was incorrect. Therefore, Petitioner
has failed to make a sufficient showing to merit the issuance of a certificate of appealability.
2
Case 1:25-cv-00368-MAC-ZJH Document 7 Filed 01/30/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

ORDER
Accordingly, Petitioner’s objections (#6) are OVERRULED. The findings of fact and
conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are correct, and the report of the magistrate judge (#5)
is ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered in this case in accordance with the magistrate
judge’s recommendation. A certificate of appealability will not be issued.
3
________________________________________
MARCIA A. CRONE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 30th day of January, 2026.
Case 1:25-cv-00368-MAC-ZJH Document 7 Filed 01/30/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>