Mornes v. Director, TDCJ-CID

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
LEONARD MORNES,
ID #02120659
Petitioner,
VS.
DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
) CIVIL ACTION NO.
)
) 3:22-CV-2312-G-BW
)
)
)
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND
DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge
and any objections thereto, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the court is of
the opinion that the Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct,
and they are accepted as the Findings and Conclusions of the court. For the reasons
stated in the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States
Magistrate Judge, the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State
Custody, received on October 14, 2022 (docket entry 1), will be DENIED with
prejudice by separate judgment.
Case 3:22-cv-02312-G-BW Document 24 Filed 01/13/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

In accordance with FED. R. APP. P. 22(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) and after
considering the record in this case and the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge,
the petitioner is DENIED a Certificate of Appealability. The court adopts and
incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge’s Findings, Conclusions, and
Recommendation in support of its finding that the petitioner has failed to show (1)
that reasonable jurists would find this court’s “assessment of the constitutional claims
debatable or wrong” or (2) that reasonable jurists would find “it debatable whether
the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right” and “debatable
whether [this court] was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.
473, 484 (2000).*
* Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United
States District Courts, as amended effective on December 1, 2019, reads as follows:
(a) Certificate of Appealability. The district court must
issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a
final order adverse to the applicant. Before entering the
final order, the court may direct the parties to submit
arguments on whether a certificate should issue. If the
court issues a certificate, the court must state the specific
issue or issues that satisfy the showing required by 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). If the court denies a certificate, the
parties may not appeal the denial but may seek a certificate
from the court of appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 22. A motion to reconsider a denial does not
extend the time to appeal.
(b) Time to Appeal. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
4(a) governs the time to appeal an order entered under
these rules. A timely notice of appeal must be filed even if
the district court issues a certificate of appealability.
-2-
Case 3:22-cv-02312-G-BW Document 24 Filed 01/13/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

In the event that the petitioner files a notice of appeal, he must pay the
$605.00 appellate filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis that is
accompanied by a properly signed certificate of inmate trust account.
SO ORDERED.
January 13, 2026.
___________________________________
A. JOE FISH
Senior United States District Judge
-3-
Case 3:22-cv-02312-G-BW Document 24 Filed 01/13/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>