Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_11-cv-00522/USCOURTS-almd-1_11-cv-00522-0/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

 ____________________________

DONNELL FLOURNOY, #126385 *

Petitioner, *

v. * 1:11-CV-522-MEF

 (WO)

WARDEN MCSWAIN-HOLLAND, et al., *

Respondents. *

 ____________________________

ORDER

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

filed byPetitioner Donnell Flournoyon June 28, 2011. In this petition, Petitioner challenges 1

matters associated with the revocation of his parole by the Circuit Court for Houston County,

Alabama, in January 2010.

Respondents filed an answer in accordance with the provisions of Rule 5, Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. (Doc. No. 11 .) 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. Specifically, Respondents maintain that

Petitioner’s allegations that the trial court violated state law when: 1) it failed to determine

Although the present petition was stamped "filed" in this court on June 30, 2011, Petitioner signed 1

the petition on June 28, 2011. 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. 1993). In light of the th th

foregoing, the court considers June 28, 2011 as the date of filing. 

Case 1:11-cv-00522-WKW-WC Document 13 Filed 09/16/11 Page 1 of 6
whether he could be released on bond during the pendency of the revocation hearing; 2)

failed to inform him that he could request to be released on bond; and 3) revoked his

community corrections sentence despite having options other than the revocation available,

do not present cognizable federal claims. Respondents further maintain that the following

issues presented by Petitioner are procedurally defaulted: 1) the trial court failed to inform

him of the nature of the allegations against him; 2) the trial court failed to provide him with

a written copy of the allegations; 3) the trial court failed to advise him that any admissions

he made could be used against him; 4) the trial court failed to advise him of the right to

request appointed counsel; 5) the trial court failed to schedule a separate revocation hearing;

6) the trial court failed to appoint counsel to represent him; and 7) the trial court erroneously

revoked his community corrections sentence despite having options other than revocation. 

In support of this argument, Respondents contend that the defaulted claims were not

presented to the state courts in accordance with the requirements of the state’s procedural

rules. See O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (1999); Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288

(1989); Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72 (1977).; Smith v. Jones, 256 F.3d 1135, 1140-

1146 (11 Cir. 2001); Brownlee v. Haley, 306 F.3d 1043, 1065 (11 Cir. 2002); Holladay

th th

v. Haley, 209 F.3d 1243, 1254 n. 9 (11 Cir.); Bailey v. Nagle, 172 F.3d 1299, 1303 (11

th th

Cir. 1999); Collier v. Jones, 901 F.2d 770, 773 (11 Cir. 1990). (Doc. No. 11.) th

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

2

Case 1:11-cv-00522-WKW-WC Document 13 Filed 09/16/11 Page 2 of 6
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... clearlyestablished Federal law, as determined bythe 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 (11 Cir. 2001). In the th

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.”).

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

3

Case 1:11-cv-00522-WKW-WC Document 13 Filed 09/16/11 Page 3 of 6
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).

A procedural default bars consideration of the merits of a claim “unlessthe prisoner

can demonstrate cause for the default and actual prejudice as a result of the alleged

violation of federal law, or demonstrate that failure to consider the claims will result in a

fundamental miscarriage of justice.” Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750, 111 S.Ct.

2546, 2565, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991); Peoples v. Campbell, 377 F.3d 1208, 1235 (11 Cir.

th

2004); Henderson v. Campbell, 353 F.3d 880, 892 (11 Cir. 2003). However, even if the

th

petitioner failsto show cause and prejudice, a procedural default will not preclude a federal

court from considering a habeas petitioner's federal constitutional claim where the

petitioner is able to show that the court's failure to address his claim would result in a

"fundamental miscarriage of justice." Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 320 (1995); Murray

v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478 (1986). The miscarriage ofjustice exception allowsfederal courts

to address procedurally defaulted claims if the petitioner shows that "a constitutional

violation has probably resulted in the conviction of one who is actually innocent." Carrier,

477 U.S. at 496.

Accordingly, it is

4

Case 1:11-cv-00522-WKW-WC Document 13 Filed 09/16/11 Page 4 of 6
ORDERED that on or before October 7, 2011 Petitioner may file a response to the

answer filed by Respondents. 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, 2011 the court shall "determine whether an

evidentiary hearing isrequired. If it appearsthat 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 responding to Respondents' answer 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 those 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 proper

time, consider whether to expand the record to include such materials. See Rule 7, Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.

Petitioner is cautioned that in responding to Respondents' assertion thatsome of his

constitutional claims for relief are procedurally defaulted he must state specific reasons

why he failed to comply with the state's procedural rules or otherwise did not present or

5

Case 1:11-cv-00522-WKW-WC Document 13 Filed 09/16/11 Page 5 of 6
pursue these claims in state court either at the trial court level, on appeal, or in available

post-conviction proceedings. Petitioner is advised that the reasons presented must be

legally sufficient and that the facts surrounding or relating to the reasons for the failure

must be stated with specificity. If Petitioner asserts that this court should address the

procedurally defaulted claims under the fundamental miscarriage of justice exception,

Petitioner must show specific reasons for the application of this exception.

Done, this 16 day of September 2011. th

 /s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. 

WALLACE CAPEL, JR

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

6

Case 1:11-cv-00522-WKW-WC Document 13 Filed 09/16/11 Page 6 of 6