Pfalzgraf v. Jones et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge L Scott Coogler on 1/4/2016. (PSM)
2016 Jan-04 PM 01:23
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
DALE EUGENE PFALZGRAF,
KENNETH JONES, Warden,
Case No. 6:15-cv-01195-LSC-HGD
On October 22, 2015, the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation
was entered and the parties were allowed therein fourteen (14) days in which to file
objections to the recommendations made by the magistrate judge. Petitioner
sought and obtained an extension of time, to November 20, 2015, in which to file
objections. On November 3, 2015, petitioner filed a “Motion to Expand the
Record,” in which he asked the court to allow certain documents in response to the
report and recommendation.1 However, petitioner did not provide a copy of the
The documents mentioned by petitioner are a forensic evaluation conducted at Taylor
Hardin Secure Medical Facility dated August 6, 2007, and an opinion of the Alabama Court of
Criminal Appeals issued March 22, 2014, Keith Daniel George v. State, 159 So.3d 90
Page 1 of 3
documents in question, nor did he file any objections to the magistrate judge’s
report and recommendation.
After careful consideration of the record in this case and the magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation, the court hereby ADOPTS the report of the
magistrate judge. The court further ACCEPTS the recommendations of the
magistrate judge that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied as timebarred.
Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, the Court has
evaluated the claims within the petition for suitability for the issuance of a
certificate of appealability (COA). See 28 U.S.C. § 2253.
Rule 22(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that when
an appeal is taken by a petitioner, the district judge who rendered the judgment
“shall” either issue a COA or state the reasons why such a certificate should not
issue. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), a COA may issue only when the
petitioner “has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
This showing can be established by demonstrating that “reasonable jurists could
debate whether (or for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been
resolved in a different manner” or that the issues were “adequate to deserve
encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120
Page 2 of 3
S.Ct. 1595, 1603-04, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000) (citing Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S.
880, 893 & n.4, 103 S.Ct. 3383, 3394-95 & n.4, 77 L.Ed.2d 1090 (1983)). For
procedural rulings, a COA will issue only if reasonable jurists could debate
whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and
whether the court’s procedural ruling was correct. Id.
The Court finds that reasonable jurists could not debate its resolution of the
claims presented in this habeas corpus petition. For the reasons stated in the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the Court DECLINES to issue a
COA with respect to any claims.
A separate order in conformity with this Memorandum Opinion will be
entered contemporaneously herewith.
DONE and ORDERED on January 4, 2016.
L. Scott Coogler
United States District Judge
Page 3 of 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?