IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION MARTEL BEAVER §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:19-CV-158 DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID § ORDER OVERRULING PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Petitioner Martel Beaver, a prisoner confined at the Eastham Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, brought this Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to

. The court ordered that this matter be referred to the Honorable Christine L. Stetson, United States Magistrate Judge, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this court. The Magistrate Judge has submitted a Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing the Petition without prejudice for want of prosecution

due to Petitioner’s failure to comply with an order to submit an amended pleading. The court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge, along with the record and the pleadings. Petitioner filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. The court has conducted 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 of all the pleadings and the relevant case law, the court concludes that Petitioner’s objections lack merit. The Petition was nearly unintelligible. Although Petitioner referred to a conviction and disciplinary cases, his allegations were too vague for Respondent to reasonably prepare a response. As a result, Respondent’s Motion for More Definite Statement was granted, and Petitioner was ordered to replead, specifying the conviction or disciplinary case he is challenging, the specific

grounds for challenging the disciplinary case or conviction, and the factual basis of each ground for review. Petitioner did not comply with the Order, and the magistrate judge recommended dismissing the Petition. Similarly to his prior pleadings, Petitioner’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation are lengthy and rambling, and they do not allege any grounds for federal habeas relief. Title

allows a district court to “entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court only on the ground that he is in

custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”

(a). Because Petitioner has not alleged any facts from which this court could conclude that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or federal law, the Petition must be dismissed. In this case, 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

; 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 petitioner to make a substantial showing of the denial of a federal

constitutional right. See Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000); Elizalde v. Dretke,

(5th Cir. 2004); see also Barefoot v. Estelle,

(1982). In making that substantial showing, the petitioner need not establish that he should prevail on the merits. Rather, 2 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,

; Avila v. Quarterman,

(5th Cir. 2009). If the petition was denied on procedural grounds, the petitioner must show that jurists of

reason would find it debatable: (1) whether the petition raises a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling. Slack,

; Elizalde,

. Any doubt regarding whether to grant a certificate of appealability is resolved in favor of the petitioner, and the severity of the penalty may be considered in making this determination. See Miller v. Johnson,

(5th Cir. 2000). Here, Petitioner has not shown that any of the issues raised by his claims are subject to debate among jurists of reason, or that a procedural ruling was incorrect. 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. ORDER Accordingly, Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. #12) are OVERRULED. The findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and the report of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #10) is ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered in this case in accordance with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. A certificate of appealability will not be issued.

3