Eldridge v. Dunn et al
ORDER ADOPTING 21 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. 26 Motion for Leave to Amend §2254 Petition by Willie Eldridge is GRANTED. It is also Ordered that Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus as amended is DENIED. This action is Dismissed with prejudice. Petitioner is not entitled either to a Certificate of Appealability or to appeal in forma pauperis. Signed by Senior Judge Callie V. S. Granade on 2/7/2017. Copy mailed to Petitioner. (srd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
WILLIE ELDRIDGE, AID 184272,
JEFF DUNN, etc., et al.,
) CIVIL NO. 15–00197–CG–C
After due and proper consideration of the issues raised, and a de novo
determination of those portions of the recommendation to which objection
(Doc. 25) is made, the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 21) of the
Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and dated January 29,
2016 is adopted as the opinion of this Court.
In the interests of justice, this Court GRANTS Petitioner’s Motion for
Leave to Amend § 2254 Petition (Doc. 26). Reviewing these amendments and
the objections, the Court nonetheless concludes Petitioner’s arguments must
fail. This Court cannot properly consider petitioner’s jurisdictional
arguments, as the Alabama State court system must decide its own matters
of jurisdiction. Further, Petitioner presents these arguments as a novel issue
to be considered by this Court when, in reality, the error was created by him
in his original filings with the Montgomery County Circuit Court. (See Doc. 82, pp. 1, 3). He cannot, as a method of eschewing a decision he dislikes,
attempt to benefit from his own error. See Carey v. Free, 272 Fed. App’x 875,
876 (11th Cir. 2008) (applying the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to state
prisoner’s federal habeas review petition). Further, this Court finds the
Magistrate Judge properly considered the Alabama Court of Criminal
Appeals’s memorandum opinion (Doc. 19, Ex. B) under the Antiterrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) and soundly arrived at the conclusion
that the State court’s decision was not “contrary to, or involved an
unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined
by the Supreme Court of the United States.” Cox v. McNeil, 638 F.3d 1356,
1360 (11th Cir.) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2245(d)(1)), cert. denied sub nom. Cox v.
Tucker, ___ U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. 309, 181, L.Ed.2d 189 (2011).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1), as amended, is
DENIED. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice. Petitioner is not
entitled either to a Certificate of Appealability or to appeal in forma pauperis.
DONE and ORDERED this7th day of February, 2017.
/s/ Callie V. S. Granade
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?