Opinion
Civil Action 4:21-CV-4130
01-06-2022
EMERSON HANDY, Petitioner, v. BOBBY LUMPKIN, Respondent.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
KENNETH M. HOYT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Texas state inmate Emerson Handy filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his state court conviction for burglary of a habitation. Handy states that his petition is filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 but, because he is challenging a state court conviction, his petition is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases under Section 2254 requires a judge to “promptly examine" a newly filed petition. The rule states, in part: “If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition .... "
Handy previously challenged this conviction in another habeas corpus petition. That petition was dismissed because it was barred by the statute of limitations. See Handy v. Davis, No. 4:18-cv-3560 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 21, 2020). For the same reasons that his prior petition was time-barred, this petition, filed more than three years later, is also time-barred. The petition (Doc. # 1) is DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED. No certificate of appealability is issued.
It is so ORDERED.