1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION

PAUL LA’MARK LITTLE §

v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:23cv194

DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The Petitioner Paul La’Mark Little, proceeding pro se, filed this application for the writ of 

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2254 complaining of prison disciplinary action taken against him. 

The petition has been referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and (3) and the Amended Order for the Adoption of Local Rules for the 

Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges.

I. Background

In his petition and an attached memorandum, Petitioner states that a person named Crystal 

Reyes investigated grievance no. 2021143160, concerning disciplinary case no. 20210210124, and 

altered the extension date on the grievance to improperly extend the appeal process beyond the 

deadline. He asserts that a person named Jennifer Cozby had no discretion to proceed with a 

rehearing of disciplinary case no. 20220039208, which case has caused him to be wrongfully 

confined in restrictive housing for 22 months. He says that Cozby fabricated an extension on 

October 28, 2021.

In October of 2022, Petitioner states that he attended a hearing for the State Classification 

Committee and tried to present evidence, but Cozby was present and cut him off. Petitioner says 

thatshe refused to review the evidence of official misconduct because there were no files or records 

present to show why Petitioner was confined in restrictive housing. Instead, Petitioner complains

Case 6:23-cv-00194-JCB-JDL Document 9 Filed 12/04/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 30
2

that his confinement in restrictive housing was continued based upon a disciplinary case for which 

he had been placed in G-4 (medium) custody, not restrictive housing. He signed his petition on 

April 17, 2023.

Court records show that in March of 2022, Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition in the 

Northern District of Texasstyled Little v. Director, TDCJ-CID, cause no. 1:22cv22. In this petition, 

Petitionerstated that he was challenging disciplinary cases no. 20210210124 and 20220039208, the 

same disciplinary cases challenged in the present petition. He complained that prison officials 

violated their own procedural rules in prosecuting cause no. 20211020124, thus denying him due 

process, and that officials erroneously extended the deadline for rewriting and rehearing the 

disciplinary case, rendering the charge in cause no. 20220039208 untimely. This petition was 

dismissed with prejudice by the Northern District of Texas on November 9, 2023.

II. Discussion

Title 28U.S.C.§2244(b)(3) providesthat before a second orsuccessive application permitted 

by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of 

appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application. His petition is plainly 

successive because it challenges the same disciplinary cases at issue in a previous habeas petition 

which was adjudicated by the Northern District of Texas.

The on-line records of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals do not show that Petitioner has 

sought or received authorization to file a successive habeas petition. Until Petitioner receives 

permission from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to file a successive petition, as set out in 28 

U.S.C. §2244(b)(3), the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider his claims in a new habeas 

petition. Crone v. Cockrell, 324 F.3d 833, 836 (5th Cir. 2003); Propes v. Quarterman, 573 F.3d 225, 

230 (5th Cir. 2009). Petitioner’s present habeas petition should be dismissed untilsuch time asleave 

to file a successive petition is granted by the Fifth Circuit.

Case 6:23-cv-00194-JCB-JDL Document 9 Filed 12/04/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 31
3

Certificate of Appealability

An appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from a final order in a habeas corpus 

proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 

2253(c)(1)(A). A district court may deny a certificate of appealability sua sponte because the 

district court that denies a petitioner relief is in the best position to determine whether the petitioner 

has made a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right on the issues before that court. 

Alexander v. Johnson, 211 F.3d 895, 898 (5th Cir. 2000).

A certificate of appealability may only issue if the prisoner has made a substantial showing 

of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2); Buntion v. Lumpkin, 982 F.3d 945, 

948 (5th Cir. 2020). In order to make that showing, the petitioner must demonstrate that jurists of 

reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or thatjurists 

could conclude that the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. 

Buck v. Davis, 137 S.Ct. 759, 773, 197 L.Ed.2d 1 (2017). The Fifth Circuit’s review is not a full 

consideration of the factual or legal bases adduced in support of the petitioner’s claims, butrather 

an examination of whether the district court’s decision was debatable. Buntion, 982 F.3d at 948, 

citing United States v. Davis, 971 F.3d 524, 530 (5th Cir. 2020).

When a habeas petition is denied on procedural grounds without reaching the underlying 

constitutional claim, a certificate of appealability should issue only where the petitioner shows that 

jurists of reason would find it debatable the petition states a valid claim of denial of a constitutional 

right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its 

procedural ruling. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000). 

Petitioner has not shown, nor does the record indicate, that jurists of reason would find it

debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling that the Court lacks 

jurisdiction because he has not obtained leave from the Fifth Circuit to file a successive petition.

Consequently, he is not entitled to a certificate of appealability.

Case 6:23-cv-00194-JCB-JDL Document 9 Filed 12/04/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 32
4

RECOMMENDATION

It is accordingly recommended that the above-styled application forthewrit of habeas corpus 

be dismissed with prejudice as to its refiling without permission from the Fifth Circuit, but without 

prejudice as to its refiling once such permission has been obtained. 28 U.S.C. §2244(b)(3). It is 

further recommended that a certificate of appealability be denied sua sponte, with such denial 

referring solely to an appeal of the decision in this case and likewise having no effect upon 

Petitioner’s right to seek permission from the Fifth Circuit to file a successive petition.

A copy of these findings, conclusions and recommendations shall be served on all parties in 

the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these findings, conclusions, and 

recommendationsmustfile specificwritten objectionswithin 14 days after being served with a copy.

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 proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation where the disputed determination is 

found. An objection which merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the 

Magistrate Judge is not specific, and the district court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or 

general objections. See Battle v. United States Parole Commission, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 

1987).

Failure to file specific written objections will bar the objecting party from appealing the 

factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge which are accepted and adopted by 

the district court except upon grounds of plain error. Duarte v. City of Lewisville, 858 F.3d 348, 

352 (5th Cir. 2017).

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 4th day of December, 2023.

Case 6:23-cv-00194-JCB-JDL Document 9 Filed 12/04/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 33