COBBLE v. SELLERS

Filing 15

ORDER DENYING 8 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; DENYING 9 Motion for Reconsideration; and DENYING 12 Motion for Certificate of Appealability. Ordered by U.S. District Judge MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 10/21/2014. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
DANIEL ERIC COBBLE,

:
:
Petitioner,
:
:
VS.
:
:
WARDEN ERIC SELLERS,
:
:
Respondent.
:
_________________________________

CIVIL No. 5:14-CV-313-MTT
28 U.S.C. § 2241

ORDER
Petitioner Daniel Eric Cobble filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging
pending criminal charges against him in several Georgia counties. The Court previously
dismissed the petition without prejudice because the petition challenges criminal
charges that have not yet been adjudicated by the state courts. Order, Sept. 26, 2014,
ECF No. 5. The Court also concluded that Petitioner was not entitled to a certificate of
appealability. Id. at 3. Now, Petitioner seeks reconsideration of that Order. He also
seeks a certificate of appealability, and leave to appeal in forma pauperis. As discussed
below, Petitioner is not entitled to any of the relief he seeks, so his Motion for
Reconsideration (ECF No. 9), Motion for Certificate of Appealability (ECF No. 12), and
Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 8) are DENIED.
I.

Motion for Reconsideration
The Court dismissed Petitioner’s habeas petition because it challenged criminal

charges that have not been adjudicated- not charges for which he is currently
incarcerated. Order, Sept. 26, 2014, ECF No. 5. Again, the Court must abstain from
interfering with ongoing state court proceedings though there are some narrow

exceptions to this rule. Hughes v. Att’y Gen. of Fla., 377 F.3d 1258, 1263 n.6 (11th Cir.
2004) (stating the exceptions to the Younger doctrine.)
In support of his motion for reconsideration, Petitioner argues that the “bad faith
exception” applies to his case because the “state has not given [Petitioner] any
proceedings at all for years now” in the Cobb County and Cherokee County cases. For
the bad faith exception to apply, Petitioner must make a substantial showing of actual
bad faith such as a prosecution brought with an intention to harass or with no intention
of securing a conviction. Hudson v. Hubbard, 358 F. App’x 116, 882 (11th Cir. 2009)
(per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37,
48 (1971). Petitioner believes there has been a delay in his state court proceedings, but
he did not make a substantial allegation showing actual bad faith. Petitioner’s motion
for reconsideration is thus denied.1
II.

Petitioner’s Appeal-Related Motions
Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States

District Courts provides that “[t]he district court must issue or deny a certificate of
appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” A certificate of
appealability may issue only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the

1

Even were the Younger doctrine inapplicable to Petitioner’s case, his petition would still be
dismissed. “Absent custody by the authority against whom relief is sought, jurisdiction will not
lie to grant the writ.” Gonzales-Corrales v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, 522 F. App’x
619, 623 (11th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Simply stated,
habeas is not available to review questions unrelated to the cause of detention. Its sole function
is to grant relief from unlawful imprisonment or custody and it cannot be used properly for any
other purpose.” Pierre v. United States, 525 F.2d 933, 935-36 (5th Cir. 1976). Petitioner is
currently confined under a conviction for aggravated stalking, three counts of obstruction of an
officer, interference with government property, and terroristic threats from 2001. He is not
confined because of the charges he seeks to challenge in his present petition. Because
Petitioner is not challenging the validity of his current confinement, the Court is without
jurisdiction to address his claims.
-2-

denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). As the Court previously
concluded, Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of any
constitutional right, so he is not entitled to a certificate of appealability. His Motion for
Certificate of Appealability (ECF No. 12) is thus denied. Petitioner cannot appeal
without a certificate of appealability so his Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis (ECF No. 8) is moot.
SO ORDERED this 21st day of October, 2014.

S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
lws

-3-