U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 2010

Carlos Tijerina v. Rick Thaler, Director

Carlos Tijerina v. Rick Thaler, Director
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided March 5, 2010 · Jolly, Wiener, Elrod
368 F. App'x 584

Counsel

Carlos Tijerina, Lovelady, TX, pro se., Elizabeth A. Goettert, Office of the Attorney General, Austin, TX, for Respondent-Appellee.

Carlos Tijerina v. Rick Thaler, Director

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Carlos Tijerina, Texas prisoner # 1349165, was convicted of nine felonies involving charges related to possession of a controlled substance, forgery, and fraudulent use of identification; he was sentenced to serve 60 years in prison. He is challenging his convictions in a § 2254 proceeding that has not yet been adjudicated by the district court. This appeal concerns the district court’s denial of Tijeri-na’s motions for judicial notice and for release, and we are also presented with Tijerina’s motion requesting this court to take judicial notice under Fed.R.Evid. 201. Tijerina’s motion for judicial notice is DENIED.

Insofar as Tijerina seeks review of the district court’s denial of his motion for judicial notice, we are without jurisdiction to entertain this claim because it does not arise from an appealable order. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291, § 1292(a),(b); Fed.R.CivP. 54(b); Dardar v. Lafourche Realty Co., 849 F.2d 955, 957 (5th Cir. 1988); Save the Bay, Inc. v. United States Army, 639 F.2d 1100, 1102 & n. 3 (5th Cir. 1981). Consequently, Tijerina’s appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION to the extent he challenges the district court’s denial of his motion for judicial notice.

According to Tijerina, he should be released because his convictions are the result of a conspiracy by counsel and several state officials and because his incarceration is not lawful. These arguments do not suffice to show that the instant § 2254 proceedings involve extraordinary circumstances, nor has Tijerina shown that his § 2254 petition involves “substantial constitutional claims upon which he has a high probability of success.” See Calley v. Callaway, 496 F.2d 701, 702 (5th Cir. 1974). We AFFIRM the district court’s denial of Tijerina’s motion seeking release.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.