Bearden v. King

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
WILLIAM RAYMOND LEE BEARDEN, §
Johnson Cnty. Jail No. 126072554, 	§
§
Petitioner, 	§
§ 	No. 3:25-cv-3554-N
V. 	§
§
ADAM KING, 	§
§
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. No objections were filed. The District Court reviewed
the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation for plain error. Finding
none, 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
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.”).
Case 3:25-cv-03554-N-BN Document 7 Filed 02/27/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID <pageID>

2
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 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 27th day of February, 2026.
____________________________________
DAVID C. GODBEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-03554-N-BN Document 7 Filed 02/27/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID <pageID>