Court Opinion

ID: 9364217
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-18 19:00:22.079704+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:36.700553
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50792      Document: 00516613844          Page: 1     Date Filed: 01/18/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                 United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                  Fifth Circuit

                                                                                FILED
                                                                          January 18, 2023
                                    No. 22-50792
                                                                           Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk
   In re Isaias L. Palacios,

                                                                           Movant.

                          Motion for an order authorizing
                      the United States District Court for the
                       Western District of Texas to consider
                     a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application

   Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:
          Isaias L. Palacios, Texas prisoner # 1709341, moves for authorization
   to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application with respect to his
   conviction for two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and one
   count evading arrest and detention in a motor vehicle.1 He is one of many
   Texas prisoners who, after previously filing state habeas applications, have
   since learned that Weldon Ralph Petty, the state prosecutor who opposed
   their state habeas applications, was also employed by one or more district
   judges to prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law in those same habeas

          1
            Palacios v. State, No. XX-XXXXXXX-CR, 2013 WL 4505372, at *1 (Tex. App.—
   Eastland Apr. 11, 2013, not pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
Case: 22-50792          Document: 00516613844             Page: 2     Date Filed: 01/18/2023

                                           No. 22-50792

   cases.2 Palacios argues that the shared work of prosecutor Petty and the
   presiding judge denied his constitutional right to an impartial judge and his
   requested jury instructions.
           Palacios does not rely on a new rule of constitutional law, he rather
   relies on newly discovered evidence—collusion of Petty and the judge—
   which he argues deprived him of a fair trial. Assuming, arguendo, that the
   factual predicate for this claim was previously undiscoverable “through the
   exercise of due diligence[,]”3 the facts underlying this claim do not “establish
   by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no
   reasonable factfinder would have found [Palacios] guilty of the underlying
   offense[s].”4 Palacios argues that but for the collusion, the presiding judge
   would have included his requested jury instructions for duress, necessity,
   self-defense, and deadly force in defense of a person. But, as addressed on
   appeal, these jury instructions are unavailable to Palacios because he did not
   admit to the conduct through his own testimony or through statements he
   made to other individuals, as required by the doctrines of confession and
   avoidance.5 Palacios therefore fails to make the requisite prima facie showing

           2
             See, e.g., Ex parte Young, No. WR-65,137-05, 2021 WL 4302528, at *2–3 (Tex.
   Crim. App. Sept. 22, 2021) (per curiam) (not designated for publication); Ex parte
   Benavides, No. WR-81,593-01, 2022 WL 4360857, at *1 (Tex. Crim. App. Sept. 21, 2022)
   (per curiam) (not designated for publication); Ex parte Vetter, No. WR-85,551-01, 2022 WL
   610979, at *1 (Tex. Crim. App. Mar. 2, 2022) (per curiam) (not designated for publication);
   Ex parte Rodriguez, Nos. WR-33, 906-02 & WR-33,906-04, 2022 WL 389403, *1 (Tex.
   Crim. App. Feb. 9, 2022) (per curiam) (not designated for publication).
           3
               22 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(B)(i).
           4
               Id. § 2244(b)(2)(B).
           5
               Palacios, 2013 WL 4505372, at *1.

                                                   2
Case: 22-50792           Document: 00516613844               Page: 3    Date Filed: 01/18/2023

                                              No. 22-50792

   that but for the collusion, no reasonable factfinder would have found him
   guilty of the underlying offenses.6
           To the extent that Palacios attempts to present a claim of actual
   innocence, this Court “does not recognize freestanding claims of actual
   innocence on federal habeas review.”7 Likewise, he may not rely on an
   assertion of actual innocence to serve as a gateway to overcome the bar to
   successive filing.8 Additionally, infirmities in state postconviction
   proceedings are not grounds for relief under § 2254.9 Thus, none of
   Palacios’s proposed challenges state a claim that is cognizable on federal
   habeas review.10
           Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the motion for authorization to
   file a second or successive § 2254 application is DENIED.

           6
               See § 2244(b)(2), (b)(3)(C).
           7
               In re Swearingen, 556 F.3d 344, 348 (5th Cir. 2009).
           8
               See Jackson v. Lumpkin, 25 F.4th 339, 341 (5th Cir. 2022).
           9
            See Moore v. Dretke, 369 F.3d 844, 846 (5th Cir. 2004); see also In re Wagner, No.
   22-50259, ECF 22-50259, 24-2 (5th Cir. Aug. 3, 2022) (unpublished per curiam) (denying
   a motion for authorization to file a § 2254 application challenging Petty’s involvement in a
   state habeas proceeding); In re Russie, No. 22-50253, ECF 22-50253, 24-2 (5th Cir. June
   21, 2022) (unpublished per curiam) (same).
           10
                In re Gentras, 666 F.3d 910, 911 (5th Cir. 2012).

                                                   3