Jones v. Allen et al

Filing 19

ORDER DENYING HABEAS RELIEF: Having now carefully reviewed and considered de novo the report and recommendation, the objections to it, and the voluminous court file, the court finds that the objections are due to be and hereby are OVERRULED, and the report is ADOPTED and the recommendation is ACCEPTED. Because the claims alleged in the petition are meritless, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is due to be and hereby is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Abdul K Kallon on 10/22/12. (CVA)

FILED
2012 Oct-22 PM 01:22
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHEASTERN DIVISION

JEFF JONES,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
vs.
)
)
KIM THOMAS, Commissioner,
)
Alabama Department of Corrections;
)
LUTHER STRANGE, Attorney General )
of the State of Alabama,
)
)
Respondents.
)

Case No. 5:09-cv-155-AKK-TMP

ORDER DENYING HABEAS RELIEF
The magistrate judge filed his report and recommendation in this habeas case on May 8,
2012, recommending that the petition for relief be denied and dismissed. After being granted
extensions of time, petitioner filed his objections to the report and recommendation on July 9, 2012.
Having now carefully reviewed and considered de novo the report and recommendation, the
objections to it, and the voluminous court file, the court finds that the objections are due to be and
hereby are OVERRULED, and the report is ADOPTED and the recommendation is ACCEPTED.
The court agrees with the magistrate judge’s thorough and detailed analysis of the petitioner’s
claims, and nothing in petitioner’s objections changes that analysis. The standard of review
applicable to most of the claims is very deferential to the state courts’ resolution of the claims.
Indeed, with respect to the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, the standard of review is
“doubly deferential,” partaking of deference arising both out of the nature of ineffective-assistance
claims and that mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). See Johnson v. Secretary, DOC, 643 F.3d 907,

928-929 (11th Cir. 2011), citing Harrington v. Richter, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 770, 178 L. Ed. 2d
624 (2011). Further, the findings of fact made by the state court’s with respect to petitioner’s other
claims has not been rebutted by petitioner’s presentation of any “clear and convincing evidence.”
As explained by the magistrate judge, many of the petitioner’s claims are simply unsupported by any
evidence beyond petitioner’s speculation.
Because the claims alleged in the petition are meritless, the petition for writ of habeas corpus
is due to be and hereby is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

DONE this 22nd day of October, 2012.

________________________________
ABDUL K. KALLON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE