Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-2_15-cv-00288/USCOURTS-alsd-2_15-cv-00288-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JULIUS REEVES, : 

 Petitioner, : 

v. : CIVIL ACTION 15-0288-WS-M

WALTER MYERS, : 

 Respondent. : 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This is an action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by an Alabama 

inmate that was referred for report and recommendation pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Local Rule 72.2(c)(4), and Rule 8 

of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. This action is now 

ready for consideration. The state record is adequate to 

determine Petitioner's claims; no federal evidentiary hearing is 

required. It is recommended that this habeas petition be denied 

as this Court does not have jurisdiction over it, that this 

action be dismissed, and that judgment be entered in favor of 

Respondent Walter Myers and against Petitioner Julius Reeves on 

all claims.

On August 26, 1998, Petitioner was convicted of capital 

murder-robbery in the Dallas County Circuit Court for which he 

was sentenced to life without parole (Doc. 1, pp. 2-3; Doc. 6, 

Case 2:15-cv-00288-WS-M Document 9 Filed 07/20/15 Page 1 of 6
p. 2). No appeal was filed (Doc. 1, p. 3; Doc. 6, p. 2).

Petitioner filed his first State Rule 32 petition on August 

22, 2000 and amended it twice before it was denied on February 

8, 2001 (Doc. 6, Exhibit B, pp. 55-57). The denial was affirmed 

by the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals on May 18, 2001 (Doc. 

6, Exhibit E). The Alabama Supreme Court denied Reeves’s 

petition for certiorari on August 31, 2001 (Doc. 6, Exhibit F).

Petitioner next filed a federal habeas petition in the 

Northern District of Alabama that was transferred to—and 

received by—this Court on July 1, 2002 (Doc. 6, Exhibit G). On 

October 22, 2001, Senior United States District Judge denied and 

dismissed the petition as time-barred under the Anti-Terrorism 

and Effective Death Penalty Act (Doc. 6, Exhibit K; see also 

Reeves v. Bullard, C.A. 02-0495-BH-C (S.D. Ala. October 22, 

2002)). On December 2, 2002, Reeves’s appeal was denied for his 

failure to pay docketing and filing fees (Doc. 6, Exhibit M); a 

certificate of deniability was later denied by the appellate 

court (Doc. 6, Exhibit N). Petitioner’s motion for 

reconsideration was denied on June 18, 2003 (Doc. 6, Exhibit 0).

On August 10, 2012, the Alabama Supreme Court dismissed 

Reeves’s petition for writ of mandamus, seeking that his murder 

conviction be vacated, for lack of jurisdiction as postconviction petitions must be first filed with the circuit court 

Case 2:15-cv-00288-WS-M Document 9 Filed 07/20/15 Page 2 of 6
of original jurisdiction (Doc. 6, Exhibit P).

On June 14, 2013, Reeves filed a second State Rule 32 

petition (Doc. 6, Exhibit Q, pp. 8-14); the Dallas County 

Circuit Court dismissed the petition on November 7 (Doc. 6, 

Exhibit Q, pp. 65-70). On April 18, 2014, the Alabama Court of 

Criminal Appeals upheld the dismissal (Doc. 6, Exhibit U). On 

July 11, the same Court overruled Petitioner’s application for 

rehearing (Doc. 6, Exhibit X, p. 29). On May 26, 2015, the 

Alabama Supreme Court denied Reeves’s petition for certiorari

(Doc. 6, Exhibit Y).

On May 29, 2015, Petitioner filed a second habeas petition 

in this Court, raising a single claim: Reeves’s sentence to 

life in prison without parole when he was only sixteen years old 

is unconstitutional as found by a recent United States Supreme 

Court decision, Miller v. Alabama, --- U.S. ---, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 

183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012) (Doc. 1). Petitioner goes on to assert 

that, on March 23, 2015, the same Court granted certiorari in 

Montgomery v. Louisiana, --- U.S. ---, 135 S.Ct. 1546 (2015), to 

ponder the question as to whether Miller should be applied 

retroactively (Doc. 1, p. 5).

Respondent Answered the Complaint, asserting this was a 

successive petition and that Reeves must have approval from the 

Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to file this action (Doc. 6).

Case 2:15-cv-00288-WS-M Document 9 Filed 07/20/15 Page 3 of 6
The Court notes that its review of this petition is barred

without a certificate from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). In an Order instructing 

Petitioner to address this issue, the Court noted that “[b]efore 

a second or successive application [] is filed in the district 

court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of 

appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider 

the application.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) (Doc. 7).

The Court notes that Petitioner has provided no evidence 

that he has been given the authority to file this action. In 

fact, Reeves admits that he has sought such authority, but the 

Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, on June 25, 2015, denied it

(Doc. 8, p. 3). See In re Reeves, No. 15-12376 (11th Cir. June 

25, 2015). Because Petitioner has filed a successive habeas 

petition, without first obtaining authorization from the 

Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to do so, this Court is 

without jurisdiction to rule on it.1

Therefore, it is recommended that this habeas petition be 

denied as this Court does not have jurisdiction to review it, 

that this action be dismissed, and that judgment be entered in 

favor of Respondent Walter Myers and against Petitioner Julius 

 1

Reeves has requested this Court to stay this action until the 

Supreme Court decides Montgomery (Doc. 8, pp. 4-5). However, this 

Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain such a request. 

Case 2:15-cv-00288-WS-M Document 9 Filed 07/20/15 Page 4 of 6
Reeves on all claims.

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO FILE OBJECTIONS 

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on 

all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects 

to this recommendation or anything in it must, within fourteen 

(14) days of the date of service of this document, file specific 

written objections with the Clerk of this Court. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1); FED.R.CIV.P. 72(b); S.D. ALA. L.R. 72.4. The parties 

should note that under Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, “[a] party 

failing to object to a magistrate judge's findings or 

recommendations contained in a report and recommendation in 

accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives 

the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order 

based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions if the 

party was informed of the time period for objecting and the 

consequences on appeal for failing to object. In the absence of 

a proper objection, however, the court may review on appeal for 

plain error if necessary in the interests of justice.” 11th 

Cir. R. 3-1. In order to be specific, an objection must 

identify the specific finding or recommendation to which 

objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and 

specify the place in the Magistrate Judge’s report and 

Case 2:15-cv-00288-WS-M Document 9 Filed 07/20/15 Page 5 of 6
recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An 

objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the 

briefing before the Magistrate Judge is not specific. 

DONE this 20th day of July, 2015.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-00288-WS-M Document 9 Filed 07/20/15 Page 6 of 6