Dixon v. Davis, et al

Filing 47

ORDER denying 45 Motion to Reopen Case; denying 46 application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees. Signed by Honorable Ira De Ment on 1/19/2010. (jg, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA OF E A S T E R N DIVISION T H O M A S EDWARD DIXON, # 163115, P e titio n e r, v. L E O N E A L DAVIS, et al., R e sp o n d e n ts . ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C A S E NO. 3:93-CV-663 (WO) ORDER T h is case is presently before the Court on a Motion to Reopen Case (Doc. # 45), w h ic h Petitioner filed in letter form on January 8, 2010, and an Application to Proceed W ith o u t Prepayment of Fees and Affidavit (Doc. # 46),which Petitioner filed the same day. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion and Application are due to be DENIED. P e titio n e r was originally convicted---wrongly he claims---of the murder of his wife in the courts of the State of Alabama. He has been incarcerated on those charges for over tw e n ty years, and has steadfastly maintained his innocence. As part of his efforts to have his c o n v ic tio n overturned, he filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus with this Court in M a y , 1993. See Dixon v. Davis, 3:93-CV-663-ID. After a nearly two-year long course of p ro c e e d in g s , this Court in April, 1995, denied Petitioner's petition and dismissed his case w ith prejudice. Petitioner then attempted to appeal the dismissal, but was unsuccessful. He h a s now moved this Court to reopen his prior habeas case and allow him to proceed without p re p a y m e n t of fees. Petitioner's 1993 habeas corpus case is closed and proceed to a final and binding judgment. There is no procedure available at this juncture and in these circumstances that w o u ld allow the Court to reopen his case. Petitioner is not without recourse, however. If he w is h e s to press his claims of innocence using the writ of habeas corpus, he must comply with th e strictures of 28 U.S.C. 2244, which governs successive habeas petitions. In addition to meeting the requirements of 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(2),1 Petitioner must "move in the [E le v e n th Circuit] court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the a p p lic a tio n ." Id. 2244(b)(3)(A). Therefore, if Petitioner wishes to continue to pursue his c la im s of innocence, he must first move in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals for an order a u th o riz in g this Court to consider the application. Until the Eleventh Circuit issues such an o rd e r, this Court is powerless to consider Petitioner's claims of innocence in the context of a habeas corpus proceeding. Therefore, it is CONSIDERED and ORDERED that the Motion to Reopen Case (Doc. # 45) and the Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees (D o c . # 46) be and the same are hereby DENIED. DONE this the 19th day of January, 2009. /s/ Ira DeMent SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1 That subsection provides: (2) A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was not presented in a prior application shall be dismissed unless-(A) the applicant shows that the claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or (B)(i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence; and (ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.

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?