Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_11-cv-00452/USCOURTS-almd-2_11-cv-00452-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

_____________________________

GREGORY ACRES, #200 681 *

Petitioner, *

v. * 2:11-CV-452-ID

(WO)

WARDEN GARY HETZEL, et al., *

Respondents. *

_____________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This case is pending before the court on a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus

relief filed on June 7, 2011 by Petitioner Gregory Acres, a state inmate presently incarcerated

at the Donaldson Correction Facility in Bessemer, Alabama. In this action, Petitioner

1

challenges the conviction for capital murder entered against him by the Circuit Court for

Montgomery County, Alabama, on August 26, 1998. The trial court sentenced Petitioner to

life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. (See Doc. No. 1.)

The petition currently under consideration by the court was signed by Petitioner on June 7, 2011. 

1

(See Doc. No. 1.) The law is well settled that a pro se inmate’s petition is deemed filed on the date it is

delivered to prison officials for mailing. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 271-272 (1988); Adams v. United

States, 173 F.3d 1339, 1340-41 (11 Cir. 1999); Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 780 (11 Cir. 1993). th th

“Absent evidence to the contrary in the form of prison logs or other records, [this court] must assume that

[the instant petition] was delivered to prison authorities the day [Acres] signed it . . . ” Washington v. United

States, 243 F.3d 1299, 1301 (11 Cir. 2001). In light of the foregoing, the court considers June 7, 2011, as th

the date of filing. 

Case 2:11-cv-00452-MEF-SRW Document 4 Filed 07/08/11 Page 1 of 4
I. DISCUSSION

A review of the records of this court indicates that Petitioner filed a previous habeas

corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 1998 conviction. Petitioner filed the

previous habeas petition on June 12, 2001. Acres v. Mitchem, et al., Civil Action No. 2:01-

CV-698-WHA (M.D. Ala. 2003). In that prior action, the court denied Petitioner relief from

his Montgomery County conviction, finding his habeas application to be without merit. (Id.

at Doc. Nos. 39, 46, 47.)

Pursuant to the provisions of 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 appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to

consider the application.” “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 threejudge 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)(2)].” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(B) and (C).

It is clear from the pleadings filed by Petitioner that he has not received an order from

a three-judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals authorizing this court to

consider a successive application for habeasrelief. “Because this undertaking [is Petitioner’s]

second habeas corpus petition and because he had no permission from [the Eleventh Circuit]

to file a second habeas petition, . . . the district court lack[s] jurisdiction to grant the

2

Case 2:11-cv-00452-MEF-SRW Document 4 Filed 07/08/11 Page 2 of 4
requested relief.” Gilreath v. State Board of Pardons and Paroles, 273 F.3d 932, 933 (11

th

Cir. 2001). Consequently, the present petition for habeas corpus relief is due to be denied

and this case summarily dismissed. Id. at 934.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that the 28

U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief filed by Petitioner on June 7, 2011, be

DISMISSED in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) as Petitioner

has failed to obtain the requisite order from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals

authorizing a federal district court to consider his successive habeas application.

It is further

ORDERED that on or before July 22, 2011, the parties may file objections to the

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

Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which a party objects. Frivolous, conclusive or

general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised that

this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, 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,

3

Case 2:11-cv-00452-MEF-SRW Document 4 Filed 07/08/11 Page 3 of 4
677 F.2d 404 (5 Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 Cir.

th th

1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 Cir. 1981) (en banc),

th

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 8 day of July, 2011.

th

/s/ Susan Russ Walker

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 2:11-cv-00452-MEF-SRW Document 4 Filed 07/08/11 Page 4 of 4