Nelson v. Bolling et al
Filing
12
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 11/13/2018. (KEK)
FILED
2018 Nov-13 PM 01:43
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CURTIS EDWARD NELSON,
Petitioner,
v.
LEON BOLLING, et al.,
Respondents.
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
Case No.: 2:18-cv-838-MHH-JHE
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On May 31, 2018, Mr. Nelson filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus
seeking his release from state custody. Mr. Nelson is serving concurrent 25-year
sentences for his convictions for first-degree burglary and attempted murder.
(Doc. 1; see also Doc. 6, p. 3). Mr. Nelson filed an amended petition on July 6,
2018. (Doc. 6).
On July 12, 2018, the magistrate judge ordered Mr. Nelson to show cause
why the Court should not dismiss his habeas petition because he previously filed a
habeas petition relating to the same state charges, and he did not ask the Eleventh
Circuit Court of Appeals for permission to file a successive habeas petition before
he filed the current petition in this district court. (Doc. 3, p. 1). Mr. Nelson has
not responded to that order.
On August 8, 2018, the magistrate judge filed a report in which he
recommended that the Court dismiss Mr. Nelson’s petition without prejudice for
the reason stated in the show cause order. (Doc. 11, p. 3). The magistrate judge
notified Mr. Nelson of his right to object to the report. (Doc. 11, pp. 3-4). To date,
Mr. Nelson has not objected to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.
A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). A
district court reviews legal conclusions in a report de novo and reviews for plain
error factual findings to which no objection is made. Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d
776, 779 n. 9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745, 749
(11th Cir. 1988); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed. Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).
Based on its review of the record in this case, the Court finds no
misstatements of law in the report and no plain error in the magistrate judge’s
findings concerning Mr. Nelson’s previous habeas petition or his failure to ask the
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals for permission to file a second petition relating
to the state charges that are the subject of his first petition. Therefore, the Court
adopts the magistrate judge’s report and accepts his recommendation. The Court
will issue a separate dismissal order consistent with this memorandum opinion.
This 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.
2
2253(c)(2).
To satisfy that standard, 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). This
Court finds Mr. Nelson’s petition does not satisfy either test.
DONE this 13th day of November, 2018.
_________________________________
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?