Maze v. Alabama, State of et al

Filing 20

MEMORANDUM OPINION, as set out, the court is of the opinion that the magistrate judge's findings are due to be and are hereby ADOPTED and his recommendation is ACCEPTED. A separate final judgment will be entered. Signed by Chief Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn on 8/9/13. (CTS, )

Maze v. Alabama, State of et al

Doc. 20

FILED
2013 Aug-09 AM 09:05
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JOSEPH D. MAZE,
Petitioner,
v.
J.C. GILES, and the ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
ALABAMA,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:11-cv-03933-JFG-JEO

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is a habeas corpus case brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by an Alabama state
prisoner, Joseph D. Maze, pro se. (Doc. 1). Petitioner is currently incarcerated at the Alabama
Therapeutic Education Facility following his convictions for two counts of robbery in the first
degree. (Doc. 4). On March 12, 2013, the magistrate judge entered a report and recommendation
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) recommending that this action be dismissed with prejudice.
(Doc. 14). Maze filed a timely objection to the report and recommendation on April 30, 2013.
(Doc. 18).
In the report and recommendation, the magistrate judge found that the instant habeas
petition was untimely. (Doc. 14). The magistrate judge reached this conclusion based on a
finding that Maze’s underlying Rule 32 appeal was untimely, and as such, was not properly filed
for purposes of tolling the AEDPA limitations period. (Doc. 14 at 5-6). In his objection, Maze
attempts to relitigate the issue of the timeliness of his Rule 32 petition. In short, he argues that
his Rule 32 appeal was timely because it was filed within 42 days of when he received
documentation of the denial of the Rule 32 petition. (Doc. 18 at 7). However, the Alabama

Dockets.Justia.com

courts considered the timeliness of Maze’s Rule 32 appeal on multiple occasions (see doc. 14 at
2-3) and, absent a showing that the state court’s rule was not firmly established and regularly
followed, this court must defer to the state court determination with respect to the timeliness of
the Rule 32 petition. Webster v. Moore, 199 F.3d 1256, 1259 (11th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, the
magistrate judge correctly determined that Maze’s Rule 32 petition was not properly filed.
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court file,
including the findings and recommendation of the magistrate judge and Maze’s objection, the
court is of the opinion that the magistrate judge’s findings are due to be and are hereby
ADOPTED and his recommendation is ACCEPTED. As a result, Maze’s § 2254 petition is due
to be dismissed with prejudice. A separate final judgment will be entered.
DONE this 9th day of August, 2013.

SHARON LOVELACE BLACKBURN
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE