McZeal v. Director TDCJ
9:14-cv-00137
E.D. Tex.Sep 20, 2017Background
- Petitioner John McZeal, a Texas inmate, filed a pro se habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his conviction/incarceration.
- The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Keith F. Giblin for a Report and Recommendation.
- The Magistrate Judge recommended denial of the petition.
- No party filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.
- The district court reviewed the record, adopted the Magistrate Judge’s findings and conclusions, and ordered denial of relief.
- The court also ruled McZeal is not entitled to a certificate of appealability (COA), finding his issues not debatable among jurists of reason.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether habeas relief is warranted | McZeal contended federal relief is merited (claims not specified in order) | State opposed relief and supported Magistrate Judge recommendation to deny | Court adopted Magistrate Judge R&R and denied the petition |
| Whether objections to R&R were timely/meritorious | McZeal did not file objections | State noted no objections filed | Court treated absence of objections as acceptance and adopted R&R |
| Whether a Certificate of Appealability should issue | McZeal argued appellate review should be allowed (implicit) | State argued COA not warranted because issues are not debatable | Court denied COA — petitioner failed to make a substantial showing of constitutional denial |
| Whether issues are debatable among jurists of reason | McZeal asserted his claims merit debate (implicit) | State argued issues are not novel and resolved against petitioner | Court found issues not subject to reasonable debate and not deserving further encouragement |
Key Cases Cited
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (explains substantial showing standard for a COA)
- Elizalde v. Dretke, 362 F.3d 323 (5th Cir. 2004) (applies COA standards)
- Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (discusses appellate standards and death-penalty related review)
- Miller v. Johnson, 200 F.3d 274 (5th Cir. 2000) (resolves doubts in favor of petitioner when considering COA)