Swint v. State of Alabama

Filing 41

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 6/14/2017. (KEK)

FILED
2017 Jun-14 AM 08:51
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DARRYL SWINT,
Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF ALABAMA and the
ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF
ALABAMA,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:16-cv-0517-MHH-JEO

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On March 22, 2016, Darryl Swint, an Alabama state prisoner acting pro se,
filed this civil action. (Doc. 1). Mr. Swint is incarcerated at the Donaldson
Correctional Facility in Bessemer, Alabama.

The Court advised Mr. Swint,

pursuant to Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375 (2003), that the Court would
construe his filings in this action as a first application for a writ of habeas corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 because Mr. Swint seeks relief from convictions entered
by the Circuit Court of Barbour County, Alabama, in case numbers CC-2000-163
and CC-2000-164. (Doc. 17). Mr. Swint then filed an amended pleading on the
pre-printed form used by pro se state prisoners seeking habeas relief under § 2254.
(Doc. 18).

On August 8, 2016, the Magistrate Judge to whom the action was referred
recommended that the Court dismiss Mr. Swint’s habeas petition because the
applicable one-year statute of limitations expired before Mr. Swint filed this action.
(Doc. 23). Mr. Swint has filed various documents, including objections to the
Magistrate Judge’s August 8, 2016 report and recommendation. (Doc. 25, 27, 29,
30, 32, 33 & 35-38).
In the first post-recommendation submission, Mr. Swint objects generally to
the disposition of his case. (Doc. 25). In his second and third submissions, which
are captioned “Petition Affidavits A.R.CR.P.”, Mr. Swint mentions various state
and federal procedural rules.

(Doc. 27 & 29).

Mr. Swint also has filed an

objection to the magistrate judge’s denial of his earlier request for discovery.
(Doc. 30). He argues that the discovery “is material and necessary ... for the
preparation of his exculpatory ... defense...,” (Id. at 3),1 but Mr. Swint has not
provided details or facts supporting his conclusory contention concerning the need
for discovery.2

this document is captioned “Notice of Appeal” and was sent to the Eleventh Circuit
Court of Appeals, it is an appeal from the magistrate judge’s denial of discovery and is properly
before this Court. The Court of Appeals forwarded the submission to this Court. (See Doc. 30 at
1).
1

Although

2

In similar fashion, Mr. Swint stated in his amended habeas petition that he now is aware of facts
that were not known to him or to his attorney at the time of trial or sentencing that “are not
merely cumulative to other facts” and that “establish that the petitioner is innocent of the crime
for which the petitioner was convicted . . .” (Doc. 12, p. 8), but in his petition, Mr. Swint
identified none of the alleged new facts.
2

Mr. Swint also filed a document titled “Habeas Corpus Petition” wherein he
seeks discovery of various statements and documents, including items from his
state criminal case. (Doc. 32). He also makes various arguments and assertions
that appear to challenge the findings and conclusion in the magistrate judge’s
report and recommendation. (Id. at 3-6). Accordingly, the Court will treat the
arguments as objections to the report and recommendation.
Mr. Swint has filed a document captioned “Petition Alabama Rules of
Criminal Court of Procedure Affidavits Rule 20.3 Department of Correction 9.12
Rule 3.B.” (Doc. 33). Therein, he discusses criminal discovery and his right to a
jury trial. (Id. at 3). And he has filed a second document captioned “Habeas
Corpus Petition” in which he again seeks discovery. (Doc. 35).3 In this pleading,
he also makes conclusory contention that if he had received “exculpatory”
materials, the materials would demonstrate his innocence. (Id. at 4). The Court
treats this argument as an objection to the report and recommendation.
Mr. Swint has filed other documents that contain disjointed statements and
seek no particular relief. (Docs. 36 & 37).4 The Court will treat these documents
as objections to the report and recommendation.
Lastly, Mr. Swint has filed a document captioned “Motion to Amend
USDCTSD To the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal[s] Fed. R. App. P. 4, 24; 28
3

This document also was received by the Court of Appeals and forwarded to this Court.

4

These documents also were received by the Court of Appeals and forwarded to this Court.
3

U.S.C. §§ 1291,1292.” (Doc. 38).5 Therein, he asks that the record in this case be
amended to include an attached document which purports to be a “Petition for
Relief from Conviction or Sentence (Pursuant to Rule 32, Alabama Rule of
Criminal Procedure)” in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. (Doc. 38 at 2).
The “Petition” recites the case number of Mr. Swint’s district court case. In the
“Petition,” he asserts that his state court convictions are the result of (1) improperly
induced pleas of guilty, (2) the failure to disclose exculpatory evidence, (3) a
violation of double jeopardy, (4) improper grand jury or petit jury conduct
concerning his mental illness, and (5) ineffective assistance of counsel. (Id. at 56). He also asserts the state trial court was without jurisdiction to hear his case.
(Id. at 6).
Having reviewed and considered de novo the materials in the court file,
including the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation and Mr. Swint’s
objections, the Court overrules Mr. Swint’s objections because they are
conclusory. The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s finding that the applicable
one-year statute of limitations bars Mr. Swint’s habeas petition. Accordingly, by
separate order, the Court will deny Mr. Swint’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus
and dismiss this action with prejudice.

To the extent that Mr. Swint seeks

discovery, the Court denies the request.

5

This document was received by the Court of Appeals and forwarded to this Court.
4

Because Mr. Swint’s habeas petition does not present issues that are
debatable among jurists of reason, the Court will not issue a certificate of
appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85
(2000); Rule 11(a), § 2254 HABEAS RULES.
DONE and ORDERED this June 14, 2017.

_________________________________
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5