Gooden v. Natchez Adams County et al
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
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:16-cv-90-DCB-RHW
SHERIFF TRAVIS PATTON, et al.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
Moreover, the Court has reviewed Gooden’s response to the motion
to dismiss, along with the present objection and applicable law,
is unavailable in
In his response, Gooden rehashes the allegations set
forth in his original petition and concedes that the charges
have been dismissed.
Doc. 12, p.3.
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.
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).
document Gooden appears to request relief from the Court’s previous
Order dismissing the petitioner’s claims of excessive force and
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
imprisonment or custody and it cannot be used properly for any
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.
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.
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
A Final Judgment dismissing Gooden’s petition for writ of
habeas corpus will follow in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil
SO ORDERED, this the 15th day of May, 2017.
/s/ David Bramlette
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?