IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TEXARKANA DIVISION

§

LEE DARRELL CRAYTON §

§

Petitioner §

§

v. § Case No. 5:23-cv-46

§

DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID §

§

Respondent §

§

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Petitioner Lee Darrell Crayton, proceeding pro se, filed the above-styled and numbered 

petition for the writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking release from prison. Docket 

No. 1. The petition appears to be challenging a detainer for a charge of tampering with government 

documents, for which he says that he went to trial and was acquitted. Id. The case was referred to 

the United States Magistrate Judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636.

The Magistrate Judge determined that Petitioner had previously filed an application for the 

writ of habeas corpus challenging this detainer in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District 

of Texas. Crayton v. Adams, et al., Civil Action No. 3:09-cv-2427 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 24, 2011), ECF 

No. 11 (dismissing petition with prejudice). The Magistrate Judge observed that successive 

petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 are subject to dismissal as an abuse of the writ when the same 

legal claims are presented again, citing Ortiz-Lopez v. Federal Bureau of Prisons Director, 830 

F.App’x 127, 131 (5th Cir. 2020). Because Petitioner has previously sought habeas corpus relief 

concerning this detainer, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the petition be dismissed as an 

abuse of the writ.

Petitioner’s objections to the Report do not refer to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that 

the petition is successive and thus represents an abuse of the writ. Docket No. 6. Instead, he asserts 

Case 5:23-cv-00046-RWS-JBB Document 8 Filed 03/13/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 40
Page 2 of 3

that he is actually innocent as proven by DNA testing, a claim which appears to refer to Petitioner’s 

Dallas County conviction for aggravated sexual assault, which conviction is not at issue in the 

present case.

1

Petitioner also seeks compensation for wrongful imprisonment, a claim which he cannot 

bring in federal court but which must be pursued by filing a claim with the Comptroller of the State 

of Texas once Petitioner can show that his conviction has been set aside on the ground of 

innocence. See Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code art. 103.001, 103.051 (Vernon 2011). 

Because Petitioner does not refer to, much less controvert, the Report of the Magistrate Judge, his 

objections to this Report are without merit. See e.g., Curtis Lee Sheppard, v. Major Lucas et al., 

No. 6:21-CV-00380, 2021 WL 5263203, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 9, 2021) (finding objections that 

do not address the substance of the magistrate judge’s report are without merit); see also Pryor v. 

Dir., TDCJ-CID, No. 6:19-CV-578-JDK-KNM, 2020 WL 1703345, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 8, 2020) 

(finding objections without merit when petitioner failed to address the report’s conclusion about 

lack of jurisdiction).

The Court has conducted a careful de novo review of those portions of the Magistrate 

Judge’s proposed findings and recommendations to which the Plaintiff objected. See 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1) (District Judge shall “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or 

specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”). Upon such de novo 

review, the Court has determined that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct and the 

Plaintiff’s objections are without merit. It is accordingly

1 In any event, Petitioner has previously sought habeas corpus relief concerning this conviction 

as well. See Crayton v. Director, TDCJ-CID, Civil Action No. 3:23-cv-2265, 2023 WL 

7309519 (N.D. Tex., Oct. 17, 2023), report and recommendation adopted, 2023 WL 7311190 

(N.D. Tex., Nov. 6, 2023) (recounting petitioner’s history of seeking habeas corpus relief).

Case 5:23-cv-00046-RWS-JBB Document 8 Filed 03/13/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 41
Page 3 of 3

ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s objections are overruled and the Report of the Magistrate 

Judge (Docket No. 5) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further

ORDERED that the above-styled application for the writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED 

WITH PREJUDICE as an abuse of the writ. 

 

____________________________________

ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 13th day of March, 2024.

Case 5:23-cv-00046-RWS-JBB Document 8 Filed 03/13/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 42