Hashmi v. Director, TDCJ

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
SYED HUMZAH HASHMI, 	§
TDCJ No. 02374315, 	§
§
Petitioner, 	§
§
§
V. 	§ 	No. 3:24-cv-2009-N-BN
§
DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID, 	§ 	Consolidated with:
§ 	No. 3:24-cv-2011-N-BT
Respondent. 	§ 	No. 3:24-cv-2012-N-BK
§ 	No. 3:24-cv-2013-N-BK
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 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 Recommendation in
support of its finding that the petitioner has failed to show (1) that reasonable jurists
Case 3:24-cv-02009-N-BN Document 18 Filed 03/06/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID <pageID>

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.
SIGNED this 6 th day of March, 2026.
______________________________
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-02009-N-BN Document 18 Filed 03/06/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID <pageID>