Taylor v. Alabama, State of et al

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM OPINION ADOPTING and ACCEPTING the 11 Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins on 6/13/2016. (JLC)

FILED
2016 Jun-13 PM 02:52
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
WILLIE D. TAYLOR, JR.,
Petitioner
vs.
STATE OF ALABAMA and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
THE STATE OF ALABAMA,
Respondents

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:14-cv-01682-VEH-HGD

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On May 31, 2016, the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation was
entered and the parties were allowed fourteen (14) days in which to file objections to
the recommendations made by the magistrate judge. On June 7, 2016, petitioner filed
objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.
Although I reviewed all of the petitioner’s objections, I find that only one of
them warrants discussion. Specifically, the petitioner states that the R&R is inconsistent
because, at page two of the R&R, the magistrate judge said “petitioner ‘did not file a
petition for writ of certiorari with the Alabama Supreme Court.’ Yet, on page 4 ... [the
magistrate judge] says ‘[the petitioner] also applied to the Alabama Supreme Court for
a writ of certiorari.’ Which one is the correct statement?” (Doc. 12 at 1). There is no
inconsistency. The reference on page two of the R&R is to the petitioner’s failure to

seek a writ of certiorari on direct appeal of his conviction. The reference on page two
of the R&R is to the petitioner’s applying for a writ of certiorari as to his second Rule
32 proceeding.
Accordingly, after careful consideration of the record in this case, the magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation and the petitioner’s objections thereto, I hereby
ADOPTS the report of the magistrate judge. Further, I ACCEPT the recommendations
of the magistrate judge that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied.
Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, the Court has
evaluated the claims within the petition for suitability for the issuance of a certificate
of appealability (COA). See 28 U.S.C. § 2253.
Rule 22(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that when an
appeal is taken by a petitioner, the district judge who rendered the judgment “shall”
either issue a COA or state the reasons why such a certificate should not issue.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), a COA may issue only when the petitioner “has
made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” This showing can
be established by demonstrating that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or for
that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner”
or that the issues were “adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack
v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1603-04, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)
(citing Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 & n.4, 103 S.Ct. 3383, 3394-95 & n.4,
Page 2 of 3

77 L.Ed.2d 1090 (1983)). For procedural rulings, a COA will issue only if reasonable
jurists could debate whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a
constitutional right and whether the court’s procedural ruling was correct. Id.
I find that reasonable jurists could not debate the resolution of the claims
presented in this habeas corpus petition. For the reasons stated in the magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation, I DECLINE to issue a COA with respect to any
claim.
A separate order in conformity with this Memorandum Opinion will be entered
contemporaneously herewith.
DONE this 13th day of June, 2016.

VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS
United States District Judge

Page 3 of 3