Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-51036/USCOURTS-ca5-15-51036-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-51036

JAMES ERIC LOFTEN,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS – AUSTIN; LIBERTY 

COUNTY JUDICIARY; STATE OF TEXAS,

Respondents-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:15-CV-776

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Joseph Eric Loften, Texas prisoner # 616132, seeks a certificate of 

appealability (COA) to challenge the district court’s dismissal for lack of 

jurisdiction of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition based on it being a 

successive application barred by earlier sanction orders in other proceedings. 

Loften asserts that he is challenging for the first time his November 2013 

conviction for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and 

his 99-year term of imprisonment. 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 15, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-51036 Document: 00513877260 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/15/2017
No. 15-51036

2

Reasonable jurists would debate whether the district court erred in 

dismissing Loften’s habeas petition as successive and subject to the prior 

sanctions imposed against Loften in earlier proceedings challenging a different 

conviction or a finding of guilt in a disciplinary proceeding. Additionally, “the 

district court pleadings, the record, and the COA application demonstrate that 

reasonable jurists could debate whether the petitioner has made a valid claim 

of a constitutional deprivation.” Houser v. Dretke, 395 F.3d 560, 562 (5th Cir. 

2004).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Loften’s motion for a COA is 

GRANTED; his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED; 

the district court’s judgment dismissing his § 2254 habeas petition as 

successive and barred by sanctions is VACATED; and the matter is 

REMANDED for further proceedings. See Whitehead v. Johnson, 157 F.3d 384, 

387-88 (5th Cir. 1998). Loften’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. 

See Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212-13 (5th Cir. 1982). His motion for 

an evidentiary hearing and for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum and 

subpoenas for out-of-state witnesses is DENIED without prejudice to his filing 

the motion in the district court.

 Case: 15-51036 Document: 00513877260 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/15/2017