Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:18cv57
03-09-2019
ATAUYO UMONDAK v. DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID
ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Atauyo Umondak, an inmate confined at the Polunsky Unit, proceeding pro se, brought this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
The court referred this matter to the Honorable Keith F. Giblin, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this court. The Magistrate Judge recommends the petition be dismissed.
The court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge filed pursuant to such order, along with the record and pleadings. Petitioner filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. This requires a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and the applicable law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b).
After careful consideration, the court concludes petitioner's objections should be overruled. To the extent petitioner's claims may be liberally interpreted as asserting a claim for malicious prosecution, such claim does not affect the fact or duration of confinement and must be brought in a separate civil rights complaint. In this case, it would not further the interests of justice to construe petitioner's claims as a separate civil rights action because, in the Fifth Circuit, there is no freestanding malicious prosecution claim under Section 1983. See Castellono v. Fragozo, 352 F.3d 939 (5th Cir. 2003). Further, allowing petitioner to prosecute this action based on the payment of the $5.00 filing fee applicable to petitions for writ of habeas corpus instead of the $400.00 filing fee applicable to civil actions would allow petitioner to circumvent the filing fee requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Accordingly, the petition should be dismissed without prejudice to petitioner's ability to pursue such claims by filing a separate civil action should he choose to do so.
Furthermore, petitioner is not entitled to the issuance of a certificate of appealability. An appeal from a judgment denying federal habeas corpus relief may not proceed unless a judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; FED. R. APP. P. 22(b). The standard for granting a certificate of appealability, like that for granting a certificate of probable cause to appeal under prior law, requires the movant to make a substantial showing of the denial of a federal constitutional right. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000); Elizalde v. Dretke, 362 F.3d 323, 328 (5th Cir. 2004); see also Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1982). In making that substantial showing, the movant need not establish that he should prevail on the merits. Rather, he must demonstrate that the issues are subject to debate among jurists of reason, that a court could resolve the issues in a different manner, or that the questions presented are worthy of encouragement to proceed further. See Slack, 529 U.S. at 483-84. Any doubt regarding whether to grant a certificate of appealability is resolved in favor of the movant, and the severity of the penalty may be considered in making this determination. See Miller v. Johnson, 200 F.3d 274, 280-81 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 849 (2000).
Here, petitioner has not shown that any of the issues raised by his claims are subject to debate among jurists of reason. The factual and legal questions advanced by the movant are not novel and have been consistently resolved adversely to his position. In addition, the questions presented are not worthy of encouragement to proceed further. Therefore, petitioner has failed to make a sufficient showing to merit the issuance of a certificate of appealability. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability shall not be issued.
ORDER
Accordingly, petitioner's objections are OVERRULED. The findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Magistrate Judge are correct and the report of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered in this case in accordance with the Magistrate Judge's recommendations.
So ORDERED and SIGNED March 9, 2019.
/s/_________
Ron Clark, Senior District Judge