Neri v. Director, TDCJ-CID

Order – Page 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
JAIME RODRIGUEZ NERI, 	§
§
Petitioner, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	Civil Action No. 3:25-CV-1543-L-BK
§
DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID, 	§
§
Respondent. 	§
ORDER
On January 27, 2026, the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States
Magistrate Judge (“Report”) (Doc. 17) was entered, recommending that the court dismiss without
prejudice rather than transfer this successive habeas action, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254,
for lack of jurisdiction because Petitioner has not obtained authorization from the Fifth Circuit to
file a successive habeas petition, and he has not provided the court with his current address. For
support that dismissal rather than transfer to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
is appropriate, the Report cites In re Epps, 127 F.3d 364, 365 (5th Cir. 1997) (per curiam), and
Crone v. Cockrell, 324 F.3d 833, 838 (5th Cir. 2003). The court has not received any objections
to the Report from Petitioner, and the time for filing objections has expired.
While the Fifth Circuit cases referenced in the Report conclude that dismissal without
prejudice of a successive petition may be appropriate in certain circumstances, neither of the cases
recognize that dismissal rather than transfer is appropriate when, as here, the district court lacks
information regarding a petitioner’s current address. 	Thus, although the court agrees that the
habeas petition in this case should be construed as a successive habeas corpus petition over which
the court lacks jurisdiction for the reasons explained by the magistrate judge, it determines that
Case 3:25-cv-01543-L-BK Document 18 Filed 02/20/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID <pageID>

Order – Page 2
this successive habeas action should be transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit.
After considering the petition, file, record in this case, and the Report issued by the
magistrate judge, the court determines that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge
are correct and accepts them as modified and supplemented by this order. When a petition is
deemed successive, the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction unless a panel of the Fifth
Circuit allows the successive petition to proceed. For the reasons set forth in the Report, the court
construes Petitioner’s habeas corpus petition as a successive habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. §
2254 over which the court lacks jurisdiction and directs the clerk of the court to transfer the action
and the successive habeas petition to the Fifth Circuit to determine whether the claims asserted
should be allowed to proceed.
It is so ordered this 20th day of February, 2026.
_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-01543-L-BK Document 18 Filed 02/20/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID <pageID>