Calhoun v. Forniss et al (INMATE3)

Filing 9

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS that: (1)The 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief filed by filed by Calhoun on April 6, 2009, be DENIED; and (2) This cause of action be DISMISSED in accordance with the provisions of 28U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(3)(A), as Calhoun has failed to obtain the requisite order from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals authorizing a federal district court to consider his successive habeas application. Objections to R&R due by 6/1/2009. Signed by Honorable Terry F. Moorer on 5/19/2009. (cb, )

Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION DAVID CALHOUN, # 158430, Petitioner, v LEON FORNISS, et al., Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 2:09cv356-TMH [WO] R E C O M M E N D A T I O N OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE T h is case is before the court on a 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief f ile d on April 6, 2009, by David Calhoun, an Alabama inmate currently incarcerated at Staton C o rre c tio n a l Facility.1 Calhoun challenges a murder conviction entered against him in 1990 b y the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Alabama, arguing that the court was without ju ris d ic tio n to try him and that his incarceration in state prison is invalid. D IS C U S S IO N A review of the records of this court indicates that on March 20, 1997, Calhoun filed a previous habeas petition pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 2254 challenging the s a m e 1990 murder conviction imposed on him by the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. Although the present petition is date-stamped "received" on April 20, 2009, Calhoun avers that he signed the petition on April 6, 2009. A pro se inmate's petition is deemed filed the date it is delivered to prison officials for mailing. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 271-72 (1988); Adams v. United States, 173 F.3d 1339, 1340-41 (11th Cir. 1999); Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 780 (11th Cir. 1993). "Absent evidence to the contrary in the form of prison logs or other records, [this court] must assume that [the instant petition] was delivered to prison authorities the day [Calhoun] signed it...." Washington v. United States, 243 F.3d 1299, 1301 (11th Cir. 2001). 1 S e e Calhoun v. Nagle, et al., Civil Action No. 2:97cv378-MHT. In that prior habeas action, t h i s court denied Calhoun relief from the Montgomery County murder conviction and d is m is s e d his petition with prejudice, finding that his claims for relief lacked merit. Id. at D o c . Nos. 71 & 74. P u r s u a n t to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(3)(A), "[b]efore a second or s u c c es s iv e application permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant sh a ll move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to c o n si d e r the application." "A motion in the court of appeals for an order authorizing the d is tric t court to consider a second or successive application shall be determined by a threeju d g e panel of the court of appeals" and may be granted "only if [the assigned panel of ju d g e s] determines that the application makes a prima facie showing that the application satisfies the requirements of [28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(2)]." 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(3)(B) and (C). It is clear from the pleadings filed by Calhoun that he has not received an order from a threejud g e panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals authorizing this court to consider a s u c c es s iv e application for habeas relief. "Because this undertaking [is Petitioner's] second h a b e a s corpus petition and because he had no permission from [the Eleventh Circuit] to file a second habeas petition, ... the district court lack[s] jurisdiction to grant the requested re lie f ." Gilreath v. State Board of Pardons and Paroles, 273 F.3d 932, 933 (11 th Cir. 2001). C o n s e q u e n tly, the present petition for habeas corpus relief is due to be denied and this case s u m m a rily dismissed. Id. at 934. 2 C O N C L U SIO N A c c o rd in g ly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the undersigned Magistrate Judge th a t: 1 . The 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief filed by filed by Calhoun o n April 6, 2009, be DENIED. 2 . This cause of action be DISMISSED in accordance with the provisions of 28 U .S .C . 2244(b)(3)(A), as Calhoun has failed to obtain the requisite order from the Eleventh C irc u it Court of Appeals authorizing a federal district court to consider his successive habeas a p p li c a ti o n . It is further ORDERED that on or before June 1, 2009, the parties may file objections to the R e c o m m e n d a tio n . Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the M a g is tra te Judge's Recommendation to which the party is objecting. Frivolous, conclusive o r general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised th a t this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable. F a ilu re to file written objections to the proposed findings and advisements in the M a g is tra te Judge's Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the D is tric t Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from a tta c k in g on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation accepted or adopted by the D is tric t Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. 3 W a in w r ig h t, 677 F.2d 404 (5 th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 3 3 (11 th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 th Cir. 1981) (en b a n c ), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed d o w n prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981. Done this 19th day of May, 2009. /s/Terry F. Moorer TERRY F. MOORER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?