Noe v. Daniels et al (INMATE 3)

Filing 23

OPINION. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 12/31/2014. (wcl, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
WOODBURCK NOE,
Plaintiff,
v.
LEEPOSEY DANIELS, LUTHER
STRANGE, and ALABAMA BOARD
OF PARDONS AND PAROLES,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:14cv733-MHT
(WO)

OPINION
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, petitioner, a state
inmate, filed this lawsuit seeking habeas relief.

This

lawsuit is now before the court on the recommendation
of the United States Magistrate Judge that petitioner’s
writ

petition

exhaust

state

be

denied

remedies.

because
Also

he

before

has

failed

the

court

petitioner’s objections to the recommendation.

to
are

After

an independent and de novo review of the record, the
court concludes that the petitioner’s objections should

be overruled and the magistrate judge’s recommendation
adopted.
Admittedly, the magistrate judge cites authority on
parole revocations, rather than parole denials, even
though the petitioner here contests his parole denial.
However, under Alabama law, the appeal procedure for
both revocations and denials is the same.

Therefore,

the recommendation that petitioner must first exhaust
his state remedies by seeking a writ of certiorari in
state circuit court is correct, and does not change.
See Baker v. State, 651 So. 2d 72, 73 (Ala. Crim. App.
1994) (“A petition for a writ of certiorari filed in
the

Circuit

Court

of

Montgomery

County

is

the

appropriate remedy for review of the actions of the
Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles in reference to
the

granting,

denying,

or

revocation

of

paroles.”)

(internal citations omitted).
An appropriate judgment will be entered.
DONE, this the 31st day of December, 2014.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE