Hutto v. Lawrence County, Alabama et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 6/28/2017. (KEK)

FILED
2017 Jun-28 AM 10:57
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CARL DARRELL HUTTO,
Petitioner,
v.
LAWRENCE COUNTY, ALABAMA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

5:17-cv-0707-MHH-JEO

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pro se petitioner Carl Darrell Hutto filed this habeas corpus case on May 1, 2017.
(Doc. 1). Mr. Hutto, who is confined at the Elmore Correctional Facility in Elmore,
Alabama, challenges his 1987 murder conviction, for which he is serving a life sentence
imposed by the Circuit Court of Lawrence County, Alabama. (Docs. 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, & 15). Mr. Hutto claims that his federal constitutional rights were violated based on an
allegation that the state trial court “marked through part of the charging language [on the
indictment]” and then tried Hutto on that charge, “without resubmission to the Grand Jury
and without consent of the Petitioner.” (Doc. 1-2 at 1; see also id. at 4).
The magistrate judge to whom the case was referred entered a report on May 24,
2017 in which he recommended that the Court dismiss this action for want of jurisdiction
because Mr. Hutto’s petition a successive § 2254 application for purposes of 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(b). (Doc. 3). The magistrate judge advised Mr. Hutto of his right to file

objections within fourteen days. (Doc. 3, pp. 7-8). On June 1, 2017, Mr. Hutto filed
objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. (Doc. 4).
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).

When a

party objects to a report and recommendation, the district court must “make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.” Id. The Court reviews for plain error
proposed factual findings to which no objection is made, and the Court reviews
propositions of law de novo. Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n. 9 (11th Cir. 1993);
see also United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983) (per curiam), cert.
denied, 464 U.S. 1050 (1984) (“The failure to object to the magistrate’s findings of fact
prohibits an attack on appeal of the factual findings adopted by the district court except
on grounds of plain error or manifest injustice.”) (internal citation omitted); Macort v.
Prem, Inc., 208 Fed. Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the Court
file, including the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and Mr. Hutto’s
objections, the Court overrules Mr. Hutto’s objections. The Court adopts the magistrate

2

judge’s report and accepts his recommendation that the Court dismiss without prejudice
this habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction.1 The Court will enter a separate final order.
DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of June, 2017.

MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

1

As the magistrate judge recognized in his report, even if the Court had jurisdiction, the
Court would dismiss Mr. Hutto’s petition because it is barred by the applicable one-year statute
of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Because Mr. Hutto’s 1987 murder conviction
became final before AEDPA’s effective date, April 24, 1996, the one-one year statute of
limitations expired one year later, on April 24, 1997. See Ferreira v. Secretary, DOC, 494 F.3d
1286, 1291, n. 1 (11th Cir. 2007). Mr. Hutto did not file this action until almost 20 years after
the statute of limitations expired.

3