1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

EMANUAL DELEON FIELDS,

#1127671,

§

§

§

 Petitioner, §

§

v. § No. 3:22-cv-02485-B (BT)

§

DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID, §

§

 Respondent. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Emanual Deleon Fields, a state prisoner, filed a handwritten 

document that the Court construes as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Carson v. Johnson, 112 F.3d 818, 820 (5th Cir. 

1997) (stating that a petition for writ of habeas corpus permits a petitioner 

to seek immediate or earlier release from custody). For the following 

reasons, the Court should transfer Fields’s habeas petition to the Fifth 

Circuit Court of Appeals as successive. 

I.

Fields was convicted of three aggravated robberies in Dallas County, 

Texas, and he was sentenced to 60 years’ imprisonment. Fields appealed his 

convictions and sentences, and they were affirmed on appeal. See Fields v.

State, Nos. 05-02-01665-CR, 05-02-01666-CR, 05-02-01667-CR, 2004 WL 

Case 3:22-cv-02485-B-BT Document 4 Filed 11/08/22 Page 1 of 5 PageID 8
2

60765 (Tex. App. –Dallas, Jan. 14, 2004, pet. ref’d) cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 

2929 (2005). 

Later, Fields filed separate applications for state habeas relief for each 

of his convictions. The applications were subsequently denied without a 

written order. Ex parte Fields, Nos. 61, 187-02, 61, 187-03 & 61, 187-04 (Tex. 

Crim. App. Jan. 11, 2006). 

On February 1, 2006, Fields filed his first § 2254 petition in this Court. 

See Fields v. Quarterman, No. 3:06-cv-236-N. The magistrate judge issued 

findings and conclusions, recommending that the § 2254 petition be denied. 

On May 16, 2007, the Court denied Fields’s request for habeas relief and 

entered judgment. Fields appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The 

Fifth Circuit granted in part and denied in part a certificate of appealability 

(COA). On November 12, 2009, the Fifth Circuit affirmed this Court’s 

judgment. 

In his current petition, Fields argues: (1) he is actually innocent; (2) 

there was a miscarriage of justice when his attorney failed to preserve the 

Batson challenges during jury selection; (3) his attorney failed to adequately 

investigate and present mitigating circumstances during the penalty phase; 

(4) his attorney failed to object when the trial judge questioned a witness 

during the punishment phase; (5) his attorney failed to object and preserve 

the argument involving damaging hearsay testimony; and (6) his attorney 

Case 3:22-cv-02485-B-BT Document 4 Filed 11/08/22 Page 2 of 5 PageID 9
3

failed to request the “missing” witness charge for the State’s witnesses who 

did not testify at trial Pet. 1 (ECF No. 3). 

II.

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) 

limits the circumstances under which a state prisoner may file a second or 

successive application for habeas relief in federal court. ANTITERRORISM AND 

EFFECTIVE DEATH PENALTY ACT, Publ. L. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996). To 

raise a claim in a second or successive § 2254 petition, a prisoner must show: 

(1) newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in light of the 

evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing 

evidence that no reasonable fact finder would have found him guilty of the 

offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on 

collateral review by the Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). Before 

a petitioner files a successive petition in the District Court, a three-judge 

panel of the Fifth Circuit must determine whether he makes the requisite 

prima facie showing. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) and (B).

A petition is deemed successive when it raises a claim that was or 

could have been raised in an earlier petition, or otherwise is an abuse of writ. 

Hardemon v. Quarterman, 516 F.3d 272, 275 (5th Cir. 2008). However, a 

second petition is not successive when the first petition was dismissed due 

to prematurity or for lack of exhaustion. Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal, 523 

U.S. 637, 643-46 (1998). This is so because “dismissal of a first habeas 

Case 3:22-cv-02485-B-BT Document 4 Filed 11/08/22 Page 3 of 5 PageID 10
4

petition for technical procedural reasons would bar the prisoner from ever 

obtaining federal habeas review.” Id. at 645. 

The Court denied Fields’s first federal habeas petition on May 16, 

2007. See Fields v. Quarterman, No. 3:06-cv-236-N, ECF Nos. 19, 20. His 

new claims could have and should have been addressed in his first petition, 

and Fields fails to demonstrate that his claims were not available to him at 

the time he filed his first petition on February 1, 2006. See Hardemon, 516 

F.3d at 275. Rather, it appears the alleged errors Fields raises in his petition 

were previously known to him. For example, Fields argues that there was a 

miscarriage of justice when his trial attorney failed to preserve the Batson

challenges during jury selection. There is no indication that any of his claims 

were not available to him when he filed his first petition. 

In sum, Fields raises claims that could have and should have been 

addressed in his first petition. Therefore, the pending petition is successive. 

The Fifth Circuit has not issued an order authorizing this Court to consider 

Fields’s successive petition. Fields must obtain such an order before he may 

file another petition for habeas relief under § 2254. 

III. 

The Court should TRANSFER Fields petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit pursuant 

to In re Epps, 127 F.3d 364, 365 (5th Cir. 1997). 

Case 3:22-cv-02485-B-BT Document 4 Filed 11/08/22 Page 4 of 5 PageID 11
5

SO RECOMMENDED 

Signed November 8, 2022.

______________________________

REBECCA RUTHERFORD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all 

parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of 

this report and recommendation must file specific written objections within 

14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 72(b). In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific 

finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for 

the objection, and specify the place in the magistrate judge's report and 

recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An objection 

that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the 

magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file specific written objections will 

bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal 

conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the 

district court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United 

Services Automobile Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996)

Case 3:22-cv-02485-B-BT Document 4 Filed 11/08/22 Page 5 of 5 PageID 12