Jackson v. Lightner et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 6/6/2018. (KEK)
2018 Jun-06 AM 09:37
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
WANDA LIGHTNER, Warden, et al.,
Case No.: 1:16-cv-01663-MHH-SGC
On February 22, 2017, the magistrate judge entered a report in which she
recommended that the Court dismiss as time-barred petitioner Moses Jackson’s 28
U.S.C. § 2254 claims. (Doc. 6, p. 5). The magistrate judge advised Mr. Jackson of
his right to file objections within fourteen (14) days. (Doc. 6, pp. 5-6). Mr.
Jackson filed objections and an affidavit. (Doc. 7; Doc. 8).
A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
When a party objects to a report and recommendation, a district court must “make
a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed
findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id. A district court
reviews for plain error proposed factual findings to which no objection is made,
and a district court reviews propositions of law de novo. Garvey v. Vaughn, 993
F.2d 776, 779 n. 9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093,
1095 (11th Cir. 1983) (per curiam), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1050 (1984); Macort v.
Prem, Inc., 208 Fed. Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).
As the magistrate judge explained, this matter concerns Mr. Jackson’s 2003
convictions in the Circuit Court of Calhoun County, Alabama for first-degree
robbery and attempted murder. (Doc. 6, p. 1). Mr. Jackson did not file a direct
appeal. Rather, in 2014, more than ten years after he was convicted in state court,
Mr. Jackson filed a state petition under Rule 32 of the Alabama Rules of Criminal
Procedure. (Doc. 6, pp. 1-2). The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed
the trial court’s denial of the Rule 32 petition, and the Alabama Supreme Court
denied certiorari and entered a certificate of judgment on September 16, 2016.
(Doc. 6, p. 3). Mr. Jackson objects to the magistrate judge’s conclusion that his
federal habeas petition is time-barred. Mr. Jackson also argues that if this Court
accepts the magistrate judge’s conclusion, then this Court should issue a certificate
of appealability. (Doc. 7).
Mr. Jackson contends that his federal habeas petition is not time-barred
because he filed the petition less than a year after the Alabama Supreme Court
issued a certificate of judgment regarding his Rule 32 Petition. (Doc. 7, p. 4). As
explained in the report and recommendation, the statute of limitations that applies
to Mr. Jackson’s federal habeas petition expired in May 2004. (Doc. 6, p. 4). Mr.
Jackson’s 2014 Rule 32 petition did not revive the limitation period. See McCloud
v. Hooks, 560 F.3d 1223, 1228 (11th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, the Court overrules
Mr. Jackson’s objections regarding the magistrate judge’s determination that his
claims are time-barred.
A certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has made a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. §
To make such a showing, a “petitioner must demonstrate that
reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims debatable or wrong,” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000), or that
“the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further,”
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (internal quotation omitted).
Under this standard, a certificate of appealability is not warranted.
recommendation and Mr. Jackson’s objections, the Court accepts the magistrate
judge’s recommendation and holds that Mr. Jackson’s petition is time-barred.
The Court will enter a separate order dismissing Mr. Jackson’s habeas
DONE and ORDERED this June 6, 2018.
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?