Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-01022/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-01022-0/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 DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

COURTNEY BOYD, #208921, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 2:12-CV-1022-TMH

) [WO]

)

SYLVESTER FOLKS, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

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

corpus relief filed by Courtney Boyd [“Boyd”], a state inmate presently incarcerated at the

Mobile Work Release Facility, on November 18, 2012. In this petition, Boyd challenges

1

a conviction for first degree robbery imposed upon him by the Circuit Court of

Montgomery County, Alabama on November 18, 1999.

II. DISCUSSION

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

Although the Clerk of this court stamped the present petition “received” on November 21, 2012,

1

Boyd certified he placed the petition in the prison mail system on November 18, 2012. Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus - Doc. No. 1 at 15. The law is well settled that a pro se inmate’s petition is deemed filed 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.

th th

1993). “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 [Boyd] signed it.....” Washington v.

United States, 243 F.3d 1299, 1301 (11 Cir. 2001). In light of the foregoing, the court considers November th

18, 2012 as the date of filing. 

Case 2:12-cv-01022-TMH-CSC Document 4 Filed 12/14/12 Page 1 of 4
petitions pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the robbery conviction

imposed upon him by the Circuit Court of Montgomery County in November of 1999.

Boyd v. Thomas, et al., Case No. 2:01-CV-1081-WHA (M.D. Ala. 2003); Boyd v. Mosley,

et al., Case No. 2:07-672-MEF-CSC (M.D. Ala. 2007). In the initial habeas action, this

court denied Boyd relief from his Montgomery County robbery conviction. On June 24,

2003, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this court’s denial of Boyd’s first

habeas petition. Boyd’s second application for habeas corpus relief was summarily

dismissed pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) because the petitioner

had not received an order from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals authorizing this court

to consider a successive habeas application.

As indicated above, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) requires that “[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 herein that Boyd has not received an order from a

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

2

Case 2:12-cv-01022-TMH-CSC Document 4 Filed 12/14/12 Page 2 of 4
consider a successive application for habeas relief. “Because this undertaking [is a

successive] habeas corpus petition and because [Boyd] had no permission from [the

Eleventh Circuit] to file a [successive] habeas petition, ... the district court lack[s]

jurisdiction to grant the requested relief.” Gilreath v. State Board of Pardons and Paroles,

273 F.3d 932, 933 (11 Cir. 2001). Consequently, the present petition for habeas corpus

th

relief is due to be denied and this case summarily dismissed. Id. at 934.

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the undersigned Magistrate Judge

that:

1. The 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief filed by Courtney Boyd

on November 18, 2012 be DENIED.

2. This cause of action be DISMISSED in accordance with the provisions of 28

U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) as Boyd has failed to obtain the requisite order from the Eleventh

Circuit Court of Appeals authorizing this court to consider his successive habeas

application.

2

It is further

ORDERED that on or before December 28, 2012, the parties may file objections

The court notes that any § 2254 petition filed by the petitioner is likewise subject to the one-year 2

period of limitation contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Moreover, the court finds that there are no

circumstances present in this case which “would entitle [Boyd] in the interest of justice to transfer [pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1631] or stay ... because the limitations period had already expired before he filed” the instant

habeas action. Guenther v. Holt, 173 F.3d 1328, 1330-1331 (11 Cir. 1999). 

th

3

Case 2:12-cv-01022-TMH-CSC Document 4 Filed 12/14/12 Page 3 of 4
to the Recommendation. Any objectionsfiled mustspecifically identify the findingsin the

Magistrate Judge’sRecommendation to which the partyis objecting. 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, 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 14 day of December, 2012.

th

/s/Charles S. Coody

CHARLES S. COODY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 2:12-cv-01022-TMH-CSC Document 4 Filed 12/14/12 Page 4 of 4