Bonds v. Dunn (INMATE 3)

Filing 10

ORDER directing as follows: 91) petitioner's 9 Objection is OVERRULED; (2) the 8 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED; and (3) Petitioner James Willis Bonds's petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(3)(A) for Petitioner's failure to obtain the requisite order from the Eleventh Circuit authorizing the consideration of a successive habeas petition. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 7/23/15. (djy, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JAMES WILLIS BONDS,
# 215403,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON S. DUNN,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:15-CV-389-WKW
[WO]

ORDER
On June 23, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation (Doc. # 8),
to which Petitioner James Willis Bonds has filed a timely Objection (Doc. # 9).
Upon an independent and de novo review of those portions of the Recommendation
to which objection is made, the Objection is due to be overruled, the
Recommendation is due to be adopted, and Mr. Bonds’s petition for writ of habeas
corpus is due to be dismissed.
Mr. Bonds filed the present habeas petition to challenge the sentence of life
without the possibility of parole he received for a crime he committed when he was
a juvenile. He argues that his sentence should be vacated in light of Miller v.
Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455, 2469 (2012), in which the Supreme Court held that
imposition of mandatory life sentences without the possibility of parole for juvenile
offenders sentenced as adults violates the Eighth Amendment. The Magistrate Judge

did not reach the merits of Mr. Bonds’s challenge because he determined that Mr.
Bonds had failed to obtain the requisite order from the Eleventh Circuit authorizing
the district court to consider a successive habeas petition, leaving the court without
jurisdiction.
Mr. Bonds objects to the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. In his
Objection, Mr. Bonds does not argue that his present petition is not successive for
purposes of triggering the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Nor does he
contend that he has received the requisite authorization from the Eleventh Circuit.
Rather, Mr. Bonds argues that this action should be stayed pending the Supreme
Court’s determination in Montgomery v. Louisiana, 135 S. Ct. 1546 (2015), on
grounds that Montgomery will determine whether the holding in Miller should be
applied retroactively.
While this court acknowledges the import of the forthcoming decision in
Montgomery, its pendency does not confer jurisdiction upon this court to entertain
Mr. Bonds’s petition. As the Supreme Court has explained, failing to adhere to §
2244(b)(3)’s “gatekeeping provisions” deprives district courts of jurisdiction to
entertain habeas petitions.

Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 152 (2007).

Accordingly, this court echoes the determination of the Eleventh Circuit that
dismissal of the present petition “does not preclude” Mr. Bonds from seeking leave

2

from the Eleventh Circuit to file a new, successive petition “after the Supreme Court
decides Montgomery.” In re Bonds, No. 15-12443-E (11th Cir. June 25, 2015).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
1.

Petitioner James Willis Bonds’s Objection (Doc. # 9) is OVERRULED;

2.

the Recommendation (Doc. # 6) is ADOPTED; and

3.

Petitioner James Willis Bonds’s petition for writ of habeas corpus is

DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) for Petitioner’s failure to obtain the
requisite order from the Eleventh Circuit authorizing the consideration of a
successive habeas petition.
A final judgment will be entered separately.
DONE this 23rd day of July, 2015.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3