Brooks v. Lee
Filing
8
OPINION AND ORDER that the Final Report and Recommendation 5 is ADOPTED. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice to Petitioner's right under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 to move, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, for an order allowing a successive habeas petition. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion to Amend Petition 3 is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 1/24/2014. (anc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
JOHN LEVI BROOKS,
GDC # 1138794,
Petitioner,
v.
1:13-cv-2203-WSD
DENIS BRUCE LEE,
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Gerrilyn G. Brill’s Final
Report and Recommendation [5] (“R&R”). Also before the Court is Petitioner’s
Motion to Amend Petition [3] (“Motion to Amend”).
I.
BACKGROUND
On July 1, 2013, Petitioner John Levi Brooks (“Petitioner”), an inmate at the
Lee State Prison in Leesburg, Georgia proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner seeks to challenge the
constitutionality of his May 2003 convictions, in the Fulton County Superior
Court, for murder, aggravated assault, felony murder, and kidnapping.
On August 14, 2013, Magistrate Judge Brill issued her R&R after reviewing
the petition under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Judge Brill
found that, in October 2008, Petitioner filed a previous habeas petition in this
Court, also challenging his May 2003 convictions. In August 2009, the previous
petition was denied as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(d). Judge Brill further
found that Petitioner failed to obtain an order from the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit authorizing the filing of this second habeas
petition. Judge Brill thus concluded that this action is required to be dismissed
without prejudice to Petitioner’s right to seek leave of the Eleventh Circuit to refile the petition.
On September 6, 2013, a document entitled “Written Objections to the
Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation” [7] (“Objection”) was filed on the docket.
Although the Objection purports to constitute Petitioner’s objections to the R&R,
the document is not signed by Petitioner or an attorney.
II.
DISCUSSION
A.
Legal Standard
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and
recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (Supp. IV 2010);
Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982) (per curiam). A
district judge “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report
2
or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If no party has objected to the report and recommendation,
a court conducts only a plain error review of the record. United States v. Slay, 714
F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983) (per curiam).
B.
Analysis
In his Objection, Petitioner argues that his current petition is not successive
because his previous petition raised different claims than those asserted here and
that this Court has never reviewed his current claims for relief.1 Petitioner does not
dispute that both his current and previous petitions seek to challenge the same state
court convictions. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244, a habeas petitioner may not assert a
second petition on the same conviction, even to assert a new claim not raised in his
original petition, unless the petitioner “shall move in the appropriate court of
appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider” the second petition.
28 U.S.C. § 2244(a)(3)(A); see also id. § 2244(a)(b)(2) (authorizing successive
petitions on claims not previously raised only in limited circumstances). There is
1
Petitioner’s Objection is not signed and is therefore not properly before the Court.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a) (“Every pleading, written motion, and other paper must
be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s name—or by a party
personally if the party is unrepresented.”) Because of Petitioner’s pro se status and
the Court’s desire to decide matters on their merits, the Court nevertheless
considers Petitioner’s argument here.
3
no dispute that Petitioner here has not moved the Eleventh Circuit for an order
allowing his second petition. Absent such an order, this Court is not authorized to
consider the petition. Petitioner’s Objection is overruled, and Judge Brill’s
recommendation that this action be dismissed is adopted.2
III.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Gerrilyn G. Brill’s Final
Report and Recommendation [5] is ADOPTED. This action is DISMISSED
without prejudice to Petitioner’s right under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 to move, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, for an order allowing a
successive habeas petition.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Amend Petition
[3] is DENIED AS MOOT.
SO ORDERED this 24th day of January, 2014.
2
Petitioner does not object to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that, in light of the
necessity to dismiss this action, Petitioner’s Motion to Amend is required to be
denied as moot. The Court does not find any error in this recommendation and
adopts it.
4
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?