Johnson v. Jones et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Chief Judge Karon O Bowdre on 6/25/15. (SAC )

FILED
2015 Jun-25 PM 12:02
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LARRY JOHN JOHNSON,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN KARLA JONES and THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE
STATE OF ALABAMA,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case Number: 2:14-cvB02190-KOB-JHE

Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On May 4, 2015, the magistrate judge entered a Report and Recommendation, (doc. 7),
recommending that this petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed with prejudice, and the
petitioner filed his objections on May 11, 2015.1 (Doc. 8).
In his objections, the petitioner reiterates that the court should reconsider his sentence of life
imprisonment under Ala. Code § 13A-5-9.1 and contends that the state’s failure to do so violates the
Equal Protection clause. However, he provides no additional support and fails to explain how the
magistrate judge’s conclusion was in error. As the magistrate judge explained, the petitioner fails
to support his equal protection claim or even allege he was treated differently than others based on
race, religion, or national origin. As such, the court OVERRULES the petitioner’s objections.
Having considered the entire file in this action de novo, including the report and
recommendation and the petitioner’s objections, the court ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s report

1

Although the docket sheet indicates that the court received the petitioner’s objections
on May 18, 2015, the court deems the document filed on May 11, 2015, the date he signed the
objections per the prisoner mailbox rule.

and ACCEPTS his recommendation to dismiss the habeas petition with prejudice. The court will
enter a separate Order in conformity with this Memorandum Opinion.
The court may issue a certificate of appealability “only if the applicant has a made a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 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 quotations omitted).
The court finds that the petitioner’s claims do not satisfy either standard and DECLINES to
issue a certificate of appealability in this case.
DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of June, 2015.

____________________________________
KARON OWEN BOWDRE
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2