Murphy v. Guerrero

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
MARCUS LEVAIL MURPHY,
Petitioner,
v.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-25-3775
ERIC GUERRERO,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On June 30, 2026, this Court denied Marcus Levail Murphy's
petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Murphy now moves to alter
or amend the judgment under Rule 59 the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. For the following reasons, the motion is
denied.
I. The Rule 59 Standard
A motion to alter or amend under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)
"must clearly establish either a manifest error of law or must
present newly discovered evidence." Schiller v. Physicians
Resource Grp., Inc., 342 F. 3d 563, 567 (5th Cir. 2003) (internal
quotation marks omitted). "Relief under Rule 59(e) also
appropriate where there has been an intervening change in
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 24, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-03775 Document 24 Filed 07/24/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

controlling law."
II . Ana1ysis
Among the claims for relief addressed by this Court was
Murphy's claim that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance
by ing to retain a DNA expert. In ecting this claim, the
Court stated: "For a claim of uncalled witnesses to be
meritorious, a habeas petitioner must show: (1} the testimony of
the uncalled witnesses would have been favorable to him, and (2)
the uncalled witness would have so testified during the
proceeding. Alexander v. Mccotter, 775 F.2d 595, 605 (5th
Cir.1985) ." Murphy now argues that he was not raising an sue
of uncalled witnesses, but a claim under Ake v. Oklahoma, 470
U.S. 68 (1985).
In Ake, the Supreme Court held that due process requires a
state to provide a defendant with access to expert psychiatric
assistance in a capital prosecution the State is using
psychiatric evidence against the defendant. Assuming for
purposes of this analys that Ake appl to this case, Murphy
nonetheless fails to identify grounds for relief.
Murphy concedes that the trial court provided $15,000 for
him to retain a DNA expert, but complains that his counsel
failed to do so. Therefore, this is not an Ake issue the
2
Case 4:25-cv-03775 Document 24 Filed 07/24/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

State provided access to the expert but an ineffective
assistance of counsel issue. The Court analyzed and rejected
the claim under the appropriate standard, and Murphy fails to
demonstrate any error by the Court.
Murphy also expresses his disagreement with this Court's
denial of a certificate of appealability. His mere
disagreement, however, does not demonstrate manifest error in
that denial.
For the foregoing reasons,, Murphy's motion to alter or
amend the judgment (Docket Entry No. 20) is DENIED.
III. Certificate of Appea1abi1ity
A Certificate of Appealability ( "COA '') may issue only if
the petitioner has made a "substantial showing of the denial of
a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); see also
United States v. Kimler, 150 F.3d 429, 431 (5th Cir. 1998). A
petitioner "makes a substantial showing when he demonstrates
that his application involves issues that are debatable among
jurists of reason, that another court could resolve the issues
differently, or that the issues are suitable enough to deserve
encouragement to proceed further." Hernandez v. Johnson, 213
F.3d 243, 248 (5th Cir. 2000).
that:
3
The Supreme Court has stated
Case 4:25-cv-03775 Document 24 Filed 07/24/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

Where a district court has rejected the constitutional
claims on the merits, the showing required to satisfy
§ 2253 (c) is straightforward: The petitioner must
demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the
district court's assessment of the constitutional
claims debatable or wrong.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
This Court has carefully considered Murphy's motion. The
Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find it debatable
that Murphy fails to demonstrate manifest error in this Court's
denial of his petition. The Court therefore concludes that
Murphy is not entitled to a certificate of appealability.
IV. Conclusion and Order
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Alter or Amend the
Judgment is DENIED. No certificate of appealability shall
issue.
The Clerk shall notify all parties and provide them with a
true copy of this Order.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this the �'f-11,. day of July,
2026.
SIM LAKE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
Case 4:25-cv-03775 Document 24 Filed 07/24/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4