Bradley v. Adams et al

Filing 14

ORDER ADOPTING 8 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS as the opinion of the Court. The Court DISMISSES 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case and enter the appropriate judgment of dismissal, and DENIES Plaint iff's in forma pauperis status on appeal. The Court also DENIES 13 Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum filed by Michael Paul Bradley. In addition, the Court DENIES the issuance of a COA. Signed by District Judge R. Stan Baker on 03/01/2019. (evk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
STATESBORO DIVISION
MICHAEL PAUL BRADLEY,
Petitioner,

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 6:18-cv-59

v.
WARDEN ROBERT ADAMS, JR.; and
STATE OF GEORGIA,
Respondents.
ORDER
After an independent and de novo review of the entire record, the undersigned concurs with
the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, (doc. 8), to which Petitioner Michael Bradley
(“Bradley”) filed Objections, (doc. 11). Bradley’s Objections are largely unresponsive to the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.

However, Bradley does assert that the

Magistrate Judge erred by construing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition as a second or successive
28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition. (Doc. 11, pp. 2–3.) Despite Bradley’s assertions to the contrary, the
Magistrate Judge correctly construed Bradley’s Petition as being a second or successive Section
2254 petition subject to the restrictions of Section 2254, including the bar against unauthorized
second or successive petitions.

(Doc. 8, pp. 6–8.)

The Court OVERRULES Bradley’s

Objections.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as
the opinion of the Court. The Court DISMISSES Bradley’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus, DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case and enter the appropriate
judgment of dismissal, and DENIES Bradley in forma pauperis status on appeal. The Court also
DENIES the Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum. (Doc. 13.)

In addition, “[i]n order to appeal from the dismissal of a § 2241 petition, a state prisoner
must obtain a COA [Certificate of Appealability].” Johnson v. Warden, Ga. Diagnostic &
Classification Prison, 805 F.3d 1317, 1322–23 (11th Cir. 2015) (citing Sawyer v. Holder, 326 F.3d
1363, 1364 n.3 (11th Cir. 2003) (“Based on the statutory language of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1), state
prisoners proceeding under § 2241 must obtain a COA to appeal.”)). A COA may issue only if
the applicant makes a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right. The decision to
issue a COA requires “an overview of the claims in the habeas petition and a general assessment
of their merits.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). In order to obtain a COA, a
petitioner must show “that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of
his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve
encouragement to proceed further.” Id. “Where a plain procedural bar is present and the district
court is correct to invoke it to dispose of the case, a reasonable jurist could not conclude either that
the district court erred in dismissing the petition or that the petitioner should be allowed to proceed
further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see also Franklin v. Hightower, 215 F.3d
1196, 1199 (11th Cir. 2000). “This threshold inquiry does not require full consideration of the
factual or legal bases adduced in support of the claims.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 336. There are no
discernable issues worthy of a COA; therefore, the Court DENIES the issuance of a COA.
SO ORDERED, this 1st day of March, 2019.

R. STAN BAKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

2