Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-10571/USCOURTS-ca5-14-10571-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Patrick Bouvia Kimble
Appellant
William Stephens, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 14-10571

PATRICK BOUVIA KIMBLE,

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. 3:14-CV-1115

Before DAVIS, JONES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Patrick Bouvia Kimble, Texas prisoner # 712624, brought this case 

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to challenge his Texas murder conviction. The district 

court concluded that the application was a successive one and transferred it to 

this court so that Kimble might seek authorization to proceed. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2244(b)(3)(A); In re Epps, 127 F.3d 364, 364-65 (5th Cir. 1997). The district 

court denied a certificate of appealability (COA). Kimble filed a timely notice 

 

* 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 18, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-10571 Document: 00513276270 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/18/2015
No. 14-10571

2

of appeal and moved for a COA from this court. In a separate proceeding, a 

panel of this court concluded that Kimble’s proposed § 2254 application was 

indeed successive and denied Kimble authorization to file it. In re Kimble, 14-

10526.1

Implicitly agreeing that his proposed § 2254 application is a successive 

one, Kimble has abandoned any challenge to the district court’s transfer order. 

See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th 

Cir. 1987). We conclude that the district court “did not err by transferring the 

[application] for lack of jurisdiction.” Fulton, 783 F.3d at 686. We therefore 

DENY Kimble’s motion for a COA as unnecessary and AFFIRM the district 

court’s transfer order. 

 

1 The authorization case proceeded separately from the present case because it was 

decided before our direction that, to the extent practicable, appeals from transfer orders 

should be consolidated with proceedings by the same applicant seeking authorization for 

filing a successive habeas petition. United States v. Fulton, 780 F.3d 683, 688 (5th Cir.), cert. 

denied, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 6835 (U.S. Nov. 2, 2015)(15-6348)

 Case: 14-10571 Document: 00513276270 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/18/2015