1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION 

ALEX ADAMS, #1181239, 

 Petitioner, 

v. 

SERGEANT FNU LAYTON, 

 Respondent. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Case No. 6:23-cv-176-JDK-JDL 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Petitioner Alex Adams, a Texas Department of Criminal Justice inmate 

proceeding pro se, filed this federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John 

D. Love for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for disposition. 

Petitioner is a frequent filer in this Court and should understand that filing 

fees are due upon filing an initial pleading. See, e.g., Adams v. Gordon, No. 6:23-cv178 (E.D. Tex. Jun. 23, 2023) (discussing Petitioner’s litigation history and dismissing 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)). On March 28, 2023,1 he submitted this petition for 

a writ of habeas corpus challenging a TDCJ disciplinary conviction without payment 

of the $5 filing fee or an accompanying application to proceed IFP. 

1 Petitioner dated his signature March 28, 2022. Docket No. 1 at 10. Based on the allegations in the 

petition and the date it was received, the Court presumes this is a typographical error and that he 

signed the petition on March 28, 2023. 

Case 6:23-cv-00176-JDK-JDL Document 9 Filed 07/28/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 26
2 

On April 14, 2023, Petitioner filed an IFP application that was not supported 

by a certificate from an appropriate officer that shows “the amount of money or 

securities that the petitioner has in any account,” as required by Rule 3(a)(2) of the 

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. The 

Magistrate Judge granted Petitioner two generous extensions to provide the 

certificate or pay the fee. Docket Nos. 4, 6. Petitioner has never taken either step to 

satisfy the fee requirement for this case. 

On June 30, 2023, more than three months after Petitioner signed his petition, 

the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the Court dismiss the 

petition without prejudice for failure to satisfy the fee requirement and to comply 

with the Court’s orders and recommending that a certificate of appealability be 

denied. Docket No. 7. Petitioner filed written objections. Docket No. 8. 

Where a party objects within fourteen days of service of the Report and 

Recommendation, the Court reviews the objected-to findings and conclusions of the 

Magistrate Judge de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the 

Court examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the 

law. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en 

banc), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the 

time to file objections from ten to fourteen days). 

Petitioner’s objection is unpersuasive. He simply asserts that he has no money 

to pay the filing fee and effectively argues that he should not be held to the 

requirement to document his assets because he has complained repeatedly to this 

Case 6:23-cv-00176-JDK-JDL Document 9 Filed 07/28/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 27
3 

Court that he experiences trouble complying with that requirement from both the 

prison law library and the U.S. mail. Docket No. 8. But, as the Magistrate Judge 

pointed out, other TDCJ prisoners are routinely capable of submitting trust account 

statements to this Court. Docket No. 6 at 1. And Petitioner himself managed to do 

so repeatedly in 2022, from the same unit where he is now housed. See Adams v. 

Layton, No. 6:22-cv-436, Docket No. 2 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 14, 2022); Adams v. Human 

Resources, No. 6:22-cv-363, Docket No. 6 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 3, 2022). But these previous 

IFP data sheets do not establish Petitioner’s funds at the time he commenced this 

action. Moreover, Petitioner has had more than a year since this case accrued and 

almost four months since he initiated this action to either pay the $5 filing fee or 

provide the trust account statement to proceed with this case. His failure to take 

either step in that amount of time evinces a lack of diligence and failure to prosecute 

his case. 

Having conducted a de novo review of the Report and the record in this case, 

the Court has determined that the Report of the United States Magistrate Judge is 

correct, and Petitioner’s objections are without merit. The Court therefore 

OVERRULES Petitioner’s objections (Docket No. 8) and ADOPTS the Report and 

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 7) as the opinion of the District 

Court. Petitioner’s petition for habeas corpus is hereby DISMISSED without 

prejudice for failure to satisfy the fee requirement and to comply with the Court’s 

orders. Further, the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability. 

Case 6:23-cv-00176-JDK-JDL Document 9 Filed 07/28/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 28
4 

So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of

___________________________________

JEREMY D. KERNODLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28th July, 2023.

Case 6:23-cv-00176-JDK-JDL Document 9 Filed 07/28/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 29