Jones v. Director, TDCJ-CID

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
HENDRICK DARNELL JONES, 	§
TDCJ No. 02404694, 	§
§
Petitioner, 	§
§
V. 	§ 	No. 3:24-cv-1443-K-BN
§
DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID, 	§
§
Respondent. 	§
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 (Dkt.
No. 1), will be DENIED with prejudice by separate judgment.
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
Case 3:24-cv-01443-K-BN Document 18 Filed 02/02/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID <pageID>

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).1
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.
Signed February 2 nd
, 2026.
_______________________________________
ED KINKEADE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1 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.
Case 3:24-cv-01443-K-BN Document 18 Filed 02/02/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID <pageID>