Al-Amin v. Stevenson
Filing
50
OPINION AND ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS adopting 43 Report and Recommendations, granting 22 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Robert M Stevenson, III, denying 13 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Raq ib Abdul Al-Amin, denying 31 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Raqib Abdul Al-Amin, denying 46 Motion to Stay filed by Raqib Abdul Al-Amin, and denying a certificate of appealability. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 8/5/2011. (jpet, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Raqib Abdul Al-Amin,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
Robert M. Stevenson, Warden,
)
)
Respondent.
)
___________________________________ )
C/A NO. 0:10-2023-CMC-PJG
OPINION and ORDER
This matter is before the court on Petitioner’s pro se application for writ of habeas corpus,
filed in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (B)(2)(c), DSC, this
matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for pre-trial proceedings and
a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On July 12, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report
recommending that Petitioner’s motions for summary judgment (Dkt. Nos. 13 & 31) be denied,
Respondent’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. #22) be granted and this matter dismissed with
prejudice. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties of the procedures and requirements for filing
objections to the Report and the serious consequences if they failed to do so. Petitioner filed
objections to the Report on July 19, 2011, as well as a motion to stay (Dkt. #46, filed July 19, 2011).
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court.
See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo
determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is
made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by
1
the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b).
After conducting a de novo review of those matters as to which an objection was made, and
considering the applicable law, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and
Petitioner’s objections, the court agrees with the conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly,
the court adopts and incorporates the Report and Recommendation in full.
Petitioner’s “objections” consist, for the most part, of reargument of the issues raised in the
petition and in opposition to Respondent’s motion for summary judgment. Additionally, Petitioner’s
objections seek to cure the default of many of Petitioner’s claims, purporting to offer “cause” for
these various defaulted claims. However, none of the objections cure the deficiencies of Petitioner’s
defaulted claims. As to Petitioner’s claims which are not defaulted and were addressed on the merits
in the Report, Petitioner’s objections present no argument how the Report erred in its deferential
review of the state court decision. Therefore, Petitioner’s objections are without merit.
Petitioner seeks to stay this court’s consideration of the petition because he has purportedly
filed a new Post-Conviction Relief (PCR) action in state court. Petitioner contends that he filed a
new PCR action on June 7, 2011. Petitioner maintains that he has newly discovered evidence which
“will exonerate the Petitioner of his murder conviction.” Mot. at 2.
In Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005), the Supreme Court approved a “stay and abeyance”
procedure that district courts can use when presented with “mixed” petitions; that is, petitions
containing exhausted and unexhausted claims. Id. at 275. Under this procedure, rather than
dismissing a mixed petition, a district court can stay the petition and hold it in abeyance while the
petitioner exhausts the unexhausted claims. Id. Once all of the claims have been exhausted, the
district court can lift the stay and adjudicate the petition. Id. The Court recognized, however, that
2
applying the “stay and abeyance” procedure could undermine Congress’ design in the AEDPA to
encourage finality in criminal proceedings and to streamline the federal habeas process. Id. at 277.
To obtain a stay of a mixed petition, the petitioner must show “good cause” for failing to exhaust
his state remedies, that his unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious, and that he has not
engaged in dilatory tactics. Rhines, 544 U.S. at 278.
The current petition contains several claims which were defaulted by Petitioner’s failure to
present them to the state courts prior to their inclusion in this habeas petition. To the extent
Petitioner now seeks to stay consideration of this petition to return to the state courts to “properly”
exhaust these claims, Petitioner does not meet the “good cause” requirement of Rhines. While he
claims to have “newly discovered evidence” which he contends will exonerate him, he provides no
evidence or authority to show that the state courts would not find a new PCR barred as either
untimely or successive. Therefore, Petitioner’s motion to stay is denied.
Petitioner’s motions for summary judgment are denied.1 Respondent’s motion for summary
judgment is granted and this petition is dismissed with prejudice.
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
The governing law provides that:
(c)(2) A certificate of appealability may issue . . . only if the applicant has made a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
(c)(3) The certificate of appealability . . . shall indicate which specific issue or issues
satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists
would find this court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any
1
Petitioner’s motion for summary judgment filed October 5, 2010 (Dkt. #13), is based on
Respondent’s alleged failure to file a timely response to the petition. However, Respondent’s Return
and Motion for Summary Judgment was timely filed, as Respondent sought and received two
extensions of time to file its Return.
3
dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell,
537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676,
683 (4th Cir. 2001). In this case, the legal standard for the issuance of a certificate of appealability
has not been met. Therefore, a certificate of appealability is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Columbia, South Carolina
August 5, 2011
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?