Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_08-cv-00549/USCOURTS-almd-2_08-cv-00549-0/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)

---

1

Although Respondents have alternatively argued that Petitioner’s habeas petition is barred by the

one-year limitation period under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), it appears that, as a result of being granted an out-oftime appeal, Petitioner’s conviction did not become final until July 12, 2007. The instant application for

habeas relief was filed July 11, 2008.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

 _______________________________

BRYAN KEVIN STINSON *

Petitioner, * 

 v. * 02:08-CV-549-WHA

 (WO)

RICHARD ALLEN, ALABAMA * 

PRISON COMMISSIONER, et al.,

*

Respondents.

 _______________________________

ORDER

Respondents filed an answer on September 9, 2008 in accordance with the provisions

of Rule 5, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. (Doc.

No. 12.) They contend therein that the present habeas corpus petition is due to be denied

because the claims presented by Petitioner provide no basis for relief.1

 Specifically,

Respondents argue that Petitioner’s federal habeas claims entitle him to no relief because

the state courts properly adjudicated these issues adversely to him on appeal of his

conviction. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 404-405 (2000). A claim which is properly

adjudicated on the merits by the state courts does not provide a basis for federal habeas relief.

Id. 

Case 2:08-cv-00549-WHA-CSC Document 14 Filed 09/16/08 Page 1 of 4
2

In sum, § 2254(d)(1) places new constraints on the power of a federal court to grant

a state prisoner’s application for habeas corpus relief with respect to those claims adjudicated

on the merits in state court. The statute allows this court to grant a writ of habeas corpus

only “if the relevant state-court decision was either (1) ‘contrary to ... clearly established

Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,’ or (2) ‘involved an

unreasonable application of ... clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme

Court of the United States.’ (Emphases added.)” Williams, 529 U.S. at 404-405. “Under §

2254(d)(1) and the Williams decision, [a federal court] can grant relief only if the state court

decision denying relief is ‘contrary to’ clearly established federal law or is an ‘unreasonable

application’ of federal law.” Brown v. Head, 272 F.3d 1308, 1313 (11th Cir. 2001). In the

vast majority of cases, a federal district court will be faced with the contention that the state

court unreasonably applied federal law. 

In determining whether the state court’s decision is an

unreasonable application of the law set out in [applicable]

Supreme Court decisions, we need not decide whether we would

have reached the same result as the state court if we had been

deciding the issue in the first instance. Instead, we decide only

whether the state court’s decision of the issue is objectively

unreasonably. See Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 411, 120

S.Ct. 1495, 1522, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000) (“Under

§2254(d)(1)’s ‘unreasonable application’ clause, then, a federal

habeas court may not issue the writ simply because that court

concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant statecourt decision applied clearly established federal law

erroneously or incorrectly. Rather, that application must also be

unreasonable.”); Brown v. Head, 272 F.3d 1308, [1313] (11th

Cir. 2001)(“It is the objective reasonableness, not the

correctness per se, of the state court decision that we are to

decide.”).

Case 2:08-cv-00549-WHA-CSC Document 14 Filed 09/16/08 Page 2 of 4
3

Wright v. Secretary for the Dept. of Corrections, 278 F.3d 1245, 1256 (11th Cir. 2002).

Additionally, the statute makes it clear that a federal court cannot grant relief with respect

to claims adjudicated on the merits by the state courts “unless the adjudication of the claim

. . . resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in

light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). 

 Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that on or before October 7, 2008 Petitioner may file a response in

accordance with this order. Any pleadings, documents or evidence filed after this date will

not be considered by the court except in exceptional circumstances. Petitioner is advised that

at any time after October 7, 2008 the court shall “determine whether an evidentiary hearing

is required. If it appears that an evidentiary hearing is not required, the [court] shall make

such disposition of the petition as justice shall require.” Rule 8(a), Rules Governing Section

2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. 

Petitioner is instructed that when filing his response, he may file sworn affidavits or

other documents in support of his claims. Affidavits should set forth specific facts which

demonstrate that Petitioner is entitled to relief on the grounds presented in the habeas corpus

petition. If documents which have not previously been filed with the court are referred to in

the affidavits, sworn or certified copies of those papers must be attached to the affidavits or

served with them. When Petitioner attacks Respondents' answer by use of affidavits or other

documents, the court will, at the appropriate time, consider whether to expand the record to

include such materials. See Rule 7, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States

Case 2:08-cv-00549-WHA-CSC Document 14 Filed 09/16/08 Page 3 of 4
4

District Courts. 

Done, this 16th day of September 2008.

 /s/ Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:08-cv-00549-WHA-CSC Document 14 Filed 09/16/08 Page 4 of 4