Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_12-cv-00175/USCOURTS-almd-1_12-cv-00175-0/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 MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAMES WHITE, #145 017, )

)

Petitioner, ) 

)

 v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.: 1:12-CV-175-WHA

) [WO]

WARDEN GARY HETZEL, et al., )

)

Respondents. ) 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Petitioner James White is currently confined at the Easterling Correctional Facility

in Clio, Alabama. Petitioner seeks to challenge a conviction for sodomy entered against him

by the Circuit Court for Houston County, Alabama, in August 1986. Petitioner is serving a

life sentence for that conviction.

I. DISCUSSION

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

corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 1986 sodomy conviction. The instant

petition represents Petitioner’s fourth attempt at challenging the merits of his 1986

conviction. Petitioner’s most recent federal habeas petition, filed on April 19, 2009, was

denied and dismissed as successive on June 22, 2009. See White v. Boyd, et al., Civil Action

No. 1:09-CV-370-TMH (M.D. Ala. 2009); see also White v. Thomas, et al., Civil Action No. 

1:04-CV-105-WHA (M.D. Ala. 2004); White v. Thompson, et al., Civil Action No. 1:91-

233-MHT (M.D. Ala.1993) (denying habeas petition on merits and dismissing case with

Case 1:12-cv-00175-WHA-SRW Document 4 Filed 03/02/12 Page 1 of 4
prejudice).

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 ©.

 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 habeas relief. “Because this undertaking [is a

successive] habeas corpus petition and because [Petitioner] 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 (11th Cir. 2001). Consequently, the present petition for habeas corpus relief is due to be

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

II. CONCLUSION

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

2

Case 1:12-cv-00175-WHA-SRW Document 4 Filed 03/02/12 Page 2 of 4
U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief filed by Petitioner on February 19, 2012 1

 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 March 16, 2012, 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, 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

1

The petition currently under consideration by the court was signed by Petitioner on February 19,

2012. (See Doc. No. 1.) 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 (11th Cir. 1999); Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 780 (11th Cir.

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 [White] signed it . . . ” 

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

considers February 19, 2012 as the date of filing. 

3

Case 1:12-cv-00175-WHA-SRW Document 4 Filed 03/02/12 Page 3 of 4
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 2nd day of March, 2012.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00175-WHA-SRW Document 4 Filed 03/02/12 Page 4 of 4