Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-01069/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-01069-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

 SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAMES L. ROBINSON, # 121865, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 1:12cv1069-WHA

) (WO)

JAMES DELOACH, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

This case is before the court on James L. Robinson’s (“Robinson”) amended petition

for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Doc. Nos. 1 and 6. When he filed his

petition, Robinson was an inmate at the Alexander City Work Release & Community Work

Camp in Alexander City, Alabama. He challenges the constitutionality of his confinement

under sentences of 25 years’ imprisonment as a habitual offender imposed in May 1999 by

the Houston County Circuit Court. He claims he has been denied equal protection based

solely on the length of his sentence because (1) he is ineligible for correctional incentive

time credits under the Alabama Correctional Incentive Time Act (“ACITA”), Ala. Code §

14-9-40, et seq., as his sentence exceeds 15 years, and (2) he is ineligible for resentencing

under Ala. Code § 13A-5-9.1 (the resentencing provisions of Alabama’s Habitual Felony

Offender Act), as the length of his sentence is neither life nor life without parole. Doc. No.

1 at 2-5; Doc. No. 6 at 2-4. For the reasons that follow, Robinson’s petition should be

Case 2:12-cv-01069-WHA-WC Document 28 Filed 12/12/14 Page 1 of 6
denied and this case summarily dismissed.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Styling of Petition as One Seeking Habeas Relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241

To the extent Robinson seeks review of his claims under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, his

petition is subject to 28 U.S.C. § 2254’s procedural restrictions on successive and untimely

petitions. “[A]lthough [Robinson’s] petition is authorized by § 2241, it is also governed by

§ 2254 because [Robinson] is ‘in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court.’ 28

U.S.C. § 2254(a).” Medberry v. Crosby, 351 F.3d 1049, 1054 (11th Cir. 2003); see also

Thomas v. Crosby, 371 F.3d 782, 785 (11th Cir. 2004) (a § 2241 habeas petition filed by a

prisoner in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court is subject to the procedural

restrictions contained in § 2254). 

Our reading of §§ 2241 and 2254 as governing a single post-conviction

remedy, with the § 2254 requirements applying to petitions brought by a state

prisoner in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court, gives meaning

to § 2254 without rendering § 2241(c)(3) superfluous.... To read §§ 2241 and

2254 other than as we do would effectively render § 2254 meaningless

because state prisoners could bypass its requirements by proceeding under §

2241.

If § 2254 [and its restraints on successive and untimely petitions] were

not [also] a restriction on § 2241’s authority to grant the writ of habeas

corpus, and were instead a freestanding, alternative post-conviction remedy,

then § 2254 would serve no function at all. It would be a complete dead letter,

because no state prisoner would choose to run the gauntlet of § 2254

restrictions when he could avoid those limitations simply by writing “§ 2241”

on his petition for federal post-conviction relief. All of Congress’s time and

effort in enacting § 2254, amending it in 1966, and further amending it in

1996 with AEDPA would have been a complete waste. Section 2254 would

never be used or applied, and all of the thousands of decisions over the past

2

Case 2:12-cv-01069-WHA-WC Document 28 Filed 12/12/14 Page 2 of 6
half-century fromthe Supreme Court and other federal courts interpreting and

applying the provisions of § 2254 would have been pointless. Section 2254

would be a great irrelevancy because a state prisoner could simply opt out of

its operation by choosing a different label for his petition.

Medberry, 351 F.3d at 1060-61.

By his petition, Robinson challenges his confinement under 25-year sentences

imposed by the Houston CountyCircuit Court in May 1999. He was in custody under those

sentences when he filed his petition. “Section 2254 is triggered where a prisoner is ‘in

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court.’ 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). [Robinson] is in

custody pursuant to the judgment of the [Alabama] court. Therefore, § 2254 applies to [his]

petition.” Thomas, 371 F.3d at 787. “A state prisoner cannot evade the procedural

requirements of § 2254 by filing something purporting to be a § 2241 petition.” Id. 

Consequently, Robinson’s petition is subject to § 2254’s procedural restrictions on

successive petitions.

B. Previous Petition for Habeas Relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

Robinson filed a previous 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief alleging

entitlement to correctional incentive time credits and alleging equal protection violations

arising from application of the ACITA and Ala. Code § 13A-5-9.1. Robinson v. Deloach,

et al., Civil Action No. 1:06cv1061-MHT (M.D. Ala. 2009). This court denied that petition

on the merits of all claims raised by Robinson. Id. - Doc. Nos. 45, 48, and 60.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), “[b]efore a second or successive application

permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the

3

Case 2:12-cv-01069-WHA-WC Document 28 Filed 12/12/14 Page 3 of 6
appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the

application.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). “A motion in the court of appeals for an order

authorizing the district court to consider a second or successive application shall be

determined by a three-judge panel of the court of appeals” and may be granted “only if [the

assigned panel of judges] determines that the application makes a prima facie showing that

the application satisfies the requirements of [28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) or (b)(2)].” 28 U.S.C.

1

§ 2244(b)(3)(B) & (C).

 Section 2244(b)(1) provides: 1

A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section

2254 that was presented in a prior application shall be dismissed.

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1).

Section 2244(b)(2) provides:

A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section

2254 that was not presented in a prior application shall be dismissed unless– 

(A) the applicant shows that the claim relies on a new rule of

constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by

the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or

(B)(i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been

discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence; and

(ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in

light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by

clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no

reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the

underlying offense.

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2).

4

Case 2:12-cv-01069-WHA-WC Document 28 Filed 12/12/14 Page 4 of 6
It does not appear from the pleadings in this action that Robinson has received an

order from a three-judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals authorizing this

court to consider a successive habeas application alleging entitlement to correctional

incentive time credits and equal protection violations arising fromapplication of the ACITA

and Ala. Code § 13A-5-9.1. Because this undertaking is a second or successive habeas

corpus petition on these issues and because Robinson has no permission from the Eleventh

Circuit to file a second or successive habeas petition, this court lacks jurisdiction to grant

the requested relief. Gilreath v. State Board of Pardons and Paroles, 273 F.3d 932, 933

(11th Cir. 2001). Consequently, the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus should be

denied and this case summarily dismissed. Id. at 934.

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that:

1. The petition for writ habeas corpus relief filed by James Robinson be DENIED.

2. This cause of action be DISMISSED under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §

2244(b)(3)(A), as Robinson has failed to obtain the requisite order fromthe EleventhCircuit

Court of Appeals authorizing this court to consider his successive habeas application.

It is further 

ORDERED that on or before December 29, 2014, the parties may file objections to

the Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the

Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which the party is objecting. Frivolous, conclusive

5

Case 2:12-cv-01069-WHA-WC Document 28 Filed 12/12/14 Page 5 of 6
or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised

this Recommendation is not a final order; therefore, it is not appealable.

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and advisements in the

Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by

the District Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from

attacking on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation accepted or adopted by the

District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v.

Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982); see Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d

33 (11th Cir. 1982); see also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981, en

banc) (adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed

down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981).

Done this 12th day of December, 2014.

 /s/Wallace Capel, Jr. 

WALLACE CAPEL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6

Case 2:12-cv-01069-WHA-WC Document 28 Filed 12/12/14 Page 6 of 6