From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Crowdis v. Cockrell

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division
Nov 27, 2002
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:02-CV-362-Y (N.D. Tex. Nov. 27, 2002)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:02-CV-362-Y

November 27, 2002


ORDER DENYING PENDING MOTIONS FILED BY PETITION AND, ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS (With Special Instructions to the Clerk of Court)


Before the Court is the petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 of petitioner Christopher Michael Crowdis, along with the August 23, 2002 findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Although the magistrate judge gave the parties until September 16 to file written objections to the findings, conclusions, and recommendation, Crowdis sought and the Court granted, an extension of time to file objections until October 10, 2002. Crowdis then filed, on October 7, a second motion for extension of time to file objections, which the Court denied. Since that time, rather than file objections, Crowdis has filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's order denying the second motion for extension of time to file objections, and he then filed a motion for stay of judgment.

After review and consideration of the motion for reconsideration, the Court finds that it should be denied for the reasons stated in the Order Denying Second Motion for Extension. The Court has also reviewed and considered Crowdis's motion for stay of judgment, and finds that it should be denied. The fact that Crowdis has been appointed counsel by a state court to implement a DNA test procedure under state law, is not related to the instant proceeding.

If the procedure results in evidence helpful to Crowdis, he will need to first seek relief in state court.

The Court has reviewed the pleadings and the record in this case, and has reviewed for clear error the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge filed on August 23, 2002. The Court concludes that Crowdis's grounds for a petition for writ of habeas corpus one, two, and three must be dismissed with prejudice as time-barred, and ground four must be denied, for the reasons stated in the magistrate judge's findings and conclusions.

It is therefore ORDERED that the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the magistrate judge should be, and are hereby, ADOPTED.

It is further ORDERED that Petitioner's October 15, 2002, motion requesting reconsideration [docket no. 19] be, and is hereby, DENIED.

It is further ORDERED that Petitioner's October 29, 2002 motion for stay of judgment [docket no. 20] be, and is hereby, DENIED.

It is further ORDERED that Petitioner's grounds for a petition for writ of habeas corpus one, two, and three be, and they are hereby, DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and ground four, be, and is hereby, DENIED.

It is further ORDERED that the clerk of the Court shall transmit a copy of this order to Petitioner by certified mail, return receipt requested.


Summaries of

Crowdis v. Cockrell

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division
Nov 27, 2002
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:02-CV-362-Y (N.D. Tex. Nov. 27, 2002)
Case details for

Crowdis v. Cockrell

Case Details

Full title:CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL CROWDIS, PETITIONER v. JANIE COCKRELL, DIRECTOR…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division

Date published: Nov 27, 2002

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:02-CV-362-Y (N.D. Tex. Nov. 27, 2002)

Citing Cases

Self v. Director, TDCJ-CID

Petitioner filed objections to the Report. Petitioner contends that he does not claim entitlement to…

Breeden v. Quarterman

Ybanez v. Johnson, 204 F.3d 645, 646 (5th Cir.) (noting the structure for habeas corpus proceedings would be…