Houston v. Alabama, State of et al

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn on 3/11/16. (SMH)

FILED
2016 Mar-11 PM 03:04
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ALONZO HOUSTON,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
STATE OF ALABAMA and the
)
ATTORNEY GENERAL of the STATE )
OF ALABAMA,
)
)
Respondents.
)

Case No.: 2:14-cv-02344-SLB-SGC

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an action on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254 by Alonzo Houston, proceeding pro se. (Doc. 1). The magistrate
judge entered a report and recommendation on December 7, 2015, recommending the
petition be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) because it is a successive
petition and Houston has failed to obtain an authorizing order from the Eleventh
Circuit Court of Appeals. (Doc. 8).

In the alternative, the magistrate judge

recommended the petition be denied as barred by the statute of limitations provided
by § 2244(d)(1). (Id.).

The magistrate judge further recommended Houston’s

request for an evidentiary hearing be denied. (Id.). Finally, in accordance with Rule
11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the magistrate judge recommended
a certificate of appealability be denied. (Id.).

Houston filed objections to the report and recommendation on December 28,
2015. (Doc. 9). The objections, which are lacking in clarity and coherence, largely
re-state allegations Houston has already presented and that the magistrate judge
considered and rejected. Houston’s re-statement of the allegations does not alter the
magistrate judge’s recommendations.

To the extent the objections raise new

allegations or arguments, the new allegations or arguments do not save Houston’s §
2254 petition from dismissal as an unauthorized successive petition or denial as timebarred. Nor do they demonstrate Houston is entitled to an evidentiary hearing.
Accordingly, Houston’s objections are OVERRULED.
After careful consideration of the record in this case and the magistrate judge’s
report, the court ADOPTS that report and ACCEPTS the magistrate judge’s
recommendations. Accordingly, Houston’s § 2254 petition is due to be dismissed
pursuant to § 2244(b)(3)(A) as an unauthorized successive petition.

In the

alternative, the petition is due to be denied as time-barred pursuant to § 2244(d)(1).
Houston’s request for an evidentiary hearing is DENIED. Finally, for the reasons set
forth in the report and recommendation and pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Proceedings, a certificate of appealability is DENIED.

2

A final judgment will be entered.
DONE this 11th day of March, 2016.

SHARON LOVELACE BLACKBURN
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3