From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Taylor v. Dir., TDCJ-CID

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION
Jul 25, 2020
CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:19cv149 (E.D. Tex. Jul. 25, 2020)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:19cv149

07-25-2020

RICHARD WAYNE TAYLOR v. DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID


**NOT FOR PRINTED PUBLICATION**

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ACCEPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner Richard Wayne Taylor, inmate confined within the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, filed the above-styled petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges a conviction for murder. He has filed a motion for partial summary judgment (docket number 6) concerning one of his grounds for review.

The court previously referred this matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and applicable orders of this Court. The Magistrate Judge has submitted a Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge recommending that the motion for partial summary judgment be denied.

In his motion, petitioner asserts he is entitled to summary judgment with respect to his ground for review asserting there were certain irregularities regarding the oath of office of the judge who presided over his criminal proceeding. The Magistrate Judge concluded the motion was without merit because it concerned violations of state law and therefore did not provide petitioner with a basis for relief in this proceeding.

In his objection, petitioner asserts that the irregularities regarding the judge's oath of office violated his right to due process and made the acts of the trial judge void. He also asserts that the irregularities provide him with a basis for relief.

After considering petitioner's arguments, the court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's conclusion. "[F]ederal habeas relief does not lie for errors of state law. It is not the province of a federal habeas court to rexamine state-court determinations on state-law questions." Wilson v. Corcoran, 562 U.S. 1, 5 (2010) (internal punctuation and citations omitted). A claim regarding the oath of office of a judge who presides over a state criminal trial arises under state law and is therefore not cognizable on federal habeas review. Turner v. Quarterman, 2009 WL 2406203, at *8 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 3, 2009); Ramos v. Dretke, 2005 WL 39144, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 6, 2005). As a result, petitioner is not entitled to partial summary judgment.

ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, petitioner's objections are without merit and are OVERRULED. The findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Magistrate Judge are correct and the report of the Magistrate Judge is ACCEPTED as the opinion of the court. Petitioner's motion for partial summary judgment is DENIED.

So Ordered and Signed

Jul 25, 2020

/s/_________

Ron Clark

Senior Judge


Summaries of

Taylor v. Dir., TDCJ-CID

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION
Jul 25, 2020
CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:19cv149 (E.D. Tex. Jul. 25, 2020)
Case details for

Taylor v. Dir., TDCJ-CID

Case Details

Full title:RICHARD WAYNE TAYLOR v. DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION

Date published: Jul 25, 2020

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:19cv149 (E.D. Tex. Jul. 25, 2020)