Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-10042/USCOURTS-ca5-14-10042-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
William Stephens, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
Appellee
Corey Jamayne Taylor
Appellant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-10042

COREY JAMAYNE TAYLOR,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

WILLIAM STEPHENS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL 

JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:13-CV-4412

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Corey Jamayne Taylor, Texas prisoner # 1313186, was found guilty of 

reckless injury to a child and was sentenced to 17 years of imprisonment. His 

initial 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application was dismissed as time barred. Taylor filed 

a subsequent § 2254 application challenging the instant conviction based upon 

similar allegations to those raised in his initial application. The district court 

 

* 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

November 4, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-10042 Document: 00513259387 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/04/2015
No. 14-10042

2

transferred the application to this court as an unauthorized successive § 2254 

application.

Taylor requests a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district 

court’s order transferring his application to this court as a successive § 2254 

application. Because “a transfer order under [28 U.S.C.] § 1631 is not a final 

order within the meaning of [28 U.S.C.] § 2253(c)(1)(B), . . . the appeal of such 

an order does not require a COA.” United States v. Fulton, 780 F.3d 683, 688 

(5th Cir. 2015), petition for cert. filed (July 21, 2015) (No. 15-6348). Thus, we 

deny Taylor’s motion for a COA as unnecessary.

On appeal, Taylor does not address the reasoning of the district court’s 

transfer order. He does not contest whether the district court erred in finding 

that his § 2254 application was a successive application or set forth any bases 

upon which his application is not successive for purposes of § 2254. The record 

otherwise reflects that the claims raised by Taylor are successive because they 

were, or could have been raised, in his first § 2254 application. See In re Cain, 

137 F.3d 234, 235 (5th Cir. 1998). 

Thus, the district court properly concluded that Taylor could not file his 

§ 2254 application unless he obtained permission to do so from this court. See

28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(3)(A). The order of the district court therefore is affirmed. 

COA DENIED; AFFIRMED.

 Case: 14-10042 Document: 00513259387 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/04/2015