Gooden v. Natchez Adams County et al

Filing 19

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 13 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on 5/15/17.(TLC)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION
TERRY GOODEN

PETITIONER

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:16-cv-90-DCB-RHW

SHERIFF TRAVIS PATTON, et al.

RESPONDENT

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This cause is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Robert H.
Walker’s Report and Recommendations (docket entry 13). Having
carefully

reviewed

the

Report

and

Recommendations,

the

petitioner’s response thereto, and applicable statutory and case
law, the Court finds and orders as follows:
Petitioner Terry Gooden (“Gooden”) filed his petition for
writ of habeas corpus in October of 2016 while incarcerated in the
Adams County Jail for second offense stalking in violation of
Mississippi Code § 97-3-107.1

On January 19, 2017, the State of

Mississippi moved for an order nolle prosequi in state court.

The

Circuit Court of Adams County granted the State’s motion and
dismissed the case against Gooden without prejudice. Doc. 11-2.
The record also indicates that Gooden has been released from
custody. See Docs. 5, 6.

On February 17, 2017, the respondents

moved to dismiss Gooden’s habeas petition as moot in light of the
nolle prosequi order. Doc. 11.

The Adams County Circuit Court indictment (15-KR-0154-S) charging Gooden
with second offense stalking was returned on November 20, 2015.
1

1

Magistrate

Judge

Walker

entered

his

Report

and

Recommendations on March 17, 2017, wherein Judge Walker considered
Gooden’s petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and recommended that the
respondents’ motion be granted. See Doc. 13, p. 4.

Judge Walker

found

dismiss

that

Gooden’s

habeas

petition

sought

to

the

indictment or otherwise prevent prosecution in state court, claims
which are “normally not attainable through federal habeas corpus.”
Brown v. Estelle, 530 F.2d 1280, 1283 (5th Cir. 1976); see Doc.
13, p. 4. And even assuming federal habeas relief may have been
attainable, Judge Walker concluded that the Court is unable to
grant the requested relief because Gooden is no longer in custody
and the indictment against him has been dismissed. Doc. 13, p. 4.
Shortly thereafter, Gooden filed a Letter (docket entry 14) and
Response (docket entry 16), which the Court construes as a timely
objection to the Report and Recommendations.
When a party timely objects to a magistrate judge’s proposed
findings and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court
conducts de novo review of the recommendations to which the party’s
objections pertain. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

Yet, the Court need

not consider objections which are frivolous, conclusive or general
in nature, and the portions of the report not objected to are
reviewed only for plain error. Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 834
F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987); Douglass v. United Servs. Auto.
Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded
2

by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Gooden’s
objection to the Report and Recommendations appears to be directed
towards a single sentence contained in the introductory portion of
the report.

Namely, the petitioner argues that Judge Walker erred

by finding that “Gooden has filed no response” to the respondents’
motion to dismiss. See Doc. 13, p. 1.
Gooden’s response to the motion to dismiss was dated March
14, 2017 and docketed by the clerk on March 17, 2017, immediately
before Judge Walker’s Report and Recommendations was filed. See
Doc. 12. Though it appears that the report mistakenly noted that
Gooden failed to respond to the respondents’ motion, the Court is
satisfied that such error was inadvertent and harmless insofar as
Judge Walker does not appear to have relied upon the petitioner’s
failure

to

respond

in

reaching

his

ultimate

recommendation.

Moreover, the Court has reviewed Gooden’s response to the motion
to dismiss, along with the present objection and applicable law,
and finds
matter.2

that

federal

habeas relief

is unavailable in

this

In his response, Gooden rehashes the allegations set

forth in his original petition and concedes that the charges
against him

have been dismissed.

See

Doc. 12, p.3.

Gooden’s

objection is therefore overruled.

2 The Court has afforded the most liberal construction to the petitioner’s
pro se pleadings and surmises that Gooden’s remaining claims seek relief from
prosecution of the charge stated in Adams County Circuit Court indictment 15KR-0154-S. The Court previously dismissed Gooden’s claims of excessive force
and denial of medical care without prejudice. See Doc. 8.

3

On April 12, 2017 after the time for filing objections to the
Report and Recommendations passed, Gooden submitted an additional
document styled “Motion to Appeal” (docket entry 18).

Within this

document Gooden appears to request relief from the Court’s previous
Order dismissing the petitioner’s claims of excessive force and
denial

of

medical

care.3

While

the

petitioner’s

motion

was

docketed as a Notice of Appeal, the Court construes this document
as a motion to reconsider since the filing contains no reference
to the Fifth Circuit.

To the extent that Gooden seeks relief from

the Court’s January Order, the petitioner’s motion shall be denied.
See Pierre v. U.S., 525 F.2d 933, 936 (5th Cir. 1976) (“[a habeas
action’s]

sole

function

is

to

grant

relief

from

unlawful

imprisonment or custody and it cannot be used properly for any
other purpose”).
Having conducted a de novo review of the portion of the Report
and Recommendations objected to, and having reviewed the remainder
for plain error, the Court finds that Judge Walker has undertaken
a comprehensive review of the facts and issues presented in this
case and has issued a thorough opinion.
Accordingly,

3 The Court dismissed these claims without prejudice so that Gooden could
pursue them in a separate civil suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition to
this habeas petition, Gooden has two separate § 1983 actions pending in federal
court. Doc. 8.

4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendations (docket entry 13) is ADOPTED as the findings and
conclusions of this Court;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the respondents’ Motion to Dismiss
(docket entry 11) is GRANTED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner’s Motion to Appeal
(docket entry 18), which the Court construes as a motion to
reconsider, is DENIED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Gooden’s remaining claims be
dismissed;
A Final Judgment dismissing Gooden’s petition for writ of
habeas corpus will follow in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 58.
SO ORDERED, this the 15th day of May, 2017.

/s/ David Bramlette
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5