Hayes v. Davenport et al (INMATE 1)

Filing 8

ORDER that: 1. The petitioner's objection 7 to the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge filed on September 10, 2012 is overruled; 2. The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge 4 filed on August 13, 2012 is adopted; 3. The 28 U.S.C.  7; 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief filed by Zebedee Hayes on July 23, 2012 is DENIED. 4. This cause of action is DISMISSED in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) as Hayes has failed to obtain the requisite order from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals authorizing this Court to consider his successive habeas application. Signed by Honorable Judge Truman M. Hobbs on 9/14/2012. (jg, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
ZEBEDEE HAYES, #119920,
Petitioner,
v.
CARTER F. DAVENPORT, et al.,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 3:12-cv-0653-TMH
WO

ORDER
After an independent review of the file, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT and DECREE
of the court that:
1. The petitioner's objection (Doc. #7) to the Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge filed on September 10, 2012 is overruled;
2. The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #4) filed on August 13, 2012
is adopted;
3. The 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief filed by Zebedee Hayes on
July 23, 2012 is DENIED.
4. This cause of action is DISMISSED in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(b)(3)(A) as Hayes has failed to obtain the requisite order from the Eleventh Circuit

Court of Appeals authorizing this Court to consider his successive habeas application.1
DONE this the 14th day of September, 2012.
/s/ Truman M. Hobbs
TRUMAN M. HOBBS
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

The court notes that any habeas claims the petitioner seeks to present are likewise
subject to the one-year period of limitation contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Moreover, the
court finds that there are no circumstances present in this case which “entitle [Hayes] in the
interest of justice to transfer [pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631] or stay ... because the limitations
period had already expired before he filed” the instant habeas action. Guenther v. Holt, 173 F.3d
1328, 1330-1331 (11th Cir. 1999).
2