UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

JOE SALINAS ESTRADA, JR., §

§

Petitioner, §

§

versus § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-CV-252

§

DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID, §

§

Respondent. §

ORDER OVERRULING PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner Joe Salinas Estrada, Jr., a prisoner confined at the Stiles Unit of the Texas

Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, filed this

petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

The court referred this matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate

Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this court. 

The magistrate judge recommends dismissing the petition without prejudice as a successive

petition, filed without authorization from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

The court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States

Magistrate Judge, along with the record, pleadings, and all available evidence. Petitioner filed

objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation.

The court has conducted a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and

the applicable law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). After careful consideration, the court concludes

the objections are without merit. The magistrate correctly concluded that the petition is a 

successive petition, filed without authorization. 

Case 1:23-cv-00252-MAC-ZJH Document 17 Filed 12/18/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:

102
Additionally, Petitioner is not entitled to the issuance of a certificate of appealability. An

appeal from a judgment denying federal habeas corpus relief may not proceed unless a judge issues

a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; FED. R. APP. P. 22(b). The standard for

granting a certificate of appealability, like that for granting a certificate of probable cause to appeal

under prior law, requires Petitioner to make a substantial showing of the denial of a federal

constitutional right. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000); Elizalde v. Dretke, 362

F.3d 323, 328 (5th Cir. 2004); see also Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1982). In making

that substantial showing, Petitioner need not establish that he should prevail on the merits. Rather,

he must demonstrate that the issues are subject to debate among jurists of reason, that a court

could resolve the issues in a different manner, or that the questions presented are worthy of

encouragement to proceed further. See Slack, 529 U.S. at 483-84; Avila v. Quarterman, 560 F.3d

299, 304 (5th Cir. 2009). Any doubt regarding whether to grant a certificate of appealability is

resolved in favor of the petitioner, and the severity of the penalty may be considered in making

this determination. See Miller v. Johnson, 200 F.3d 274, 280-81 (5th Cir. 2000).

Petitioner has not shown that any of the issues raised by his claims are subject to debate

among jurists of reason or that a procedural ruling was incorrect. The questions presented are not

worthy of encouragement to proceed further. Therefore, Petitioner has failed to make a sufficient

showing to merit the issuance of a certificate of appealability. 

ORDER

Accordingly, Petitioner’s objections (#16) are OVERRULED. The findings of fact and

conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are correct, and the report of the magistrate judge (#14)

2

Case 1:23-cv-00252-MAC-ZJH Document 17 Filed 12/18/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:

103
is ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered in this case in accordance with the magistrate

judge’s recommendation. A certificate of appealability will not be issued. 

3

Case 1:23-cv-00252-MAC-ZJH Document 17 Filed 12/18/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:

104