Johnson v. Navarro County Sheriff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
RICHARD J. JOHNSON, §
#065808, §
§
Petitioner, §
§ No. 3:25-cv-90-B
V. §
§
NAVARRO COUNTY SHERIFF, §
§
Respondent. §
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
JUDGE AND DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a recommendation in
this case. Objections were filed. The District Court reviewed de novo those portions of the proposed
findings, conclusions, and recommendation to which objection was made, and reviewed the
remaining proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation for plain error.
The magistrate judge recommended dismissal without prejudice to Petitioner’s right to pursue
and exhaust available state remedies. See Dkt. No. 13. Petitioner objects that “there are no available
state remedies to exhaust for a pro se prisoner engaged in self-representation.” Dkt. No. 14 at 1
(capitalization and emphases removed). Even if he is correct that at least one of his claims, the
speedy trial claim, cannot be addressed through a state pretrial habeas, Petitioner’s claim that there
are no available state remedies to exhaust is not correct. Speedy trial claims may be addressed
through a petition for writ of mandamus filed with the appropriate court of appeals and then, if
necessary, appealed to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Ex parte Sheffield, 685 S.W.3d 86,
1
Case 3:25-cv-00090-B-BN Document 15 Filed 01/26/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2023) (writ of mandamus appropriate remedy to compel trial court to set case
for trial or dismiss indictment (citing Chapman v. Evans, 744 S.W.2d 133, 135 (Tex. Crim. App.
1988)); Padilla v. McDaniel, 122 S.W.3d 805, 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (en banc) (petition for
writ of mandamus should “be presented first to the court of appeals unless there is a compelling
reason not to do so.”); see also Dickerson v. State of Louisiana, 816 F.2d 220, 228 (5th Cir. 1987)
(requiring exhaustion of state remedies before consideration of request that state be ordered to grant
prompt trial).
Because Petitioner has not shown that he has exhausted his available state remedies, the
Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate
Judge.
To the extent that a certificate of appealability is required,1 considering the record in this case
and pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing §§
2254 and 2255 proceedings, and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), the Court DENIES a certificate of
appealability. The Court adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge’s Findings,
Conclusions, and Recommendation filed in this case in support of its finding that Petitioner has failed
to show that reasonable jurists would find “it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of
the denial of a constitutional right” or “debatable whether [this Court] was correct in its procedural
1 See Stringer v. Williams, 161 F.3d 259, 262 (5th Cir. 1998) (“[In Ojo v. I.N.S., 106 F.3d 680 (5th
Cir. 1997), w]e concluded that a COA was not required in the § 2241 proceeding at issue there,
because § 2253 clearly does not encompass challenges to federal detention under § 2241. Just as
clearly, however, § 2253 does encompass challenges to state detention under § 2241, since “the
detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court.” We hold that, assuming
Stringer is a pretrial detainee, he must obtain a COA.”).
2
Case 3:25-cv-00090-B-BN Document 15 Filed 01/26/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
But, if Petitioner elects to file a notice of appeal, Petitioner must either pay the appellate filing
fee or move for leave to appeal in forma pauperis.
SO ORDERED this 26th day of January, 2026.
3
Case 3:25-cv-00090-B-BN Document 15 Filed 01/26/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>