Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-7_14-cv-01373/USCOURTS-alnd-7_14-cv-01373-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

WESTERN DIVISION

ELVIN EARL DARBY,

 Petitioner,

v.

WARDEN KENNETH JONES 

and THE ATTORNEY 

GENERAL FOR THE STATE 

OF ALABAMA,

 Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 Case No.: 7:14-cv-01373-MHH-JHE

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On January 9, 2015, Magistrate Judge England entered a Report and 

Recommendation in which he recommended that the Court dismiss Mr. Darby’s

petition for writ of habeas corpus. (Doc. 9). After an extension of time, Mr. Darby 

filed objections to the report on February 17, 2015. (Doc. 12). For the following 

reasons, the Court overrules Mr. Darby’s objections.

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or part, the findings 

or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 

When a party makes timely objections to a Report and Recommendation, the 

district court “make[s] a de novo determination of those portions of the report or 

specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id.

FILED

 2015 Jun-24 PM 03:09

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 7:14-cv-01373-MHH-JHE Document 13 Filed 06/24/15 Page 1 of 8
2

II. DISCUSSION

In his petition for habeas corpus, Mr. Darby “challenges his April 7, 2005 

conviction in the Tuscaloosa County Circuit Court for two counts of first-degree 

sodomy, for which he was sentenced to fifty years in prison.” (Doc. 12, p. 1). Mr.

Darby contends that the state circuit court violated his federal due process rights 

when the court waited too long to mail an order to him that would have given him 

an opportunity amend his fourth Rule 32 petition to present newly discovered 

evidence for the circuit court’s consideration. (Doc. 12, p. 3). 

That state court order to which Mr. Darby refers states that the issues that 

Mr. Darby identified in his fourth Rule 32 petition:

have been previously addressed and [the petition] is clearly 

successive. The petition fails to state a claim for any “newly 

discovered evidence” that would grant relief. The petitioner is given 

30 days to amend if he so chooses to state a claim. 

(Doc. 12, p. 3; see also Doc. 8, p. 9). Mr. Darby contends that because he received 

the order more than 30 days after the circuit court issued the order, he lost his 

actual innocence defense. (Doc. 12, p. 3). Mr. Darby summarizes his federal due 

process argument as follows:

The circuit court’s failure to furnish Darby a copy of its [sic] order 

without undue delay resulted in Darby’s failure to respond to the 

circuit court’s [sic] order within 30 days. Darby’s failure to respond 

to the circuit court’s [sic] order due to constitutional error in the 

circuit courts failure to furnish Darby a copy of its [sic] without undue 

delay caused the loss of Darby’s actual innocent claim directly related 

to his detention.

Case 7:14-cv-01373-MHH-JHE Document 13 Filed 06/24/15 Page 2 of 8
3

(Id.; see also Doc. 12, p. 5). 

Magistrate Judge England recommended that the Court dismiss Mr. Darby’s 

federal habeas petition because Mr. Darby’s petition is “an attack on the fairness of 

Darby’s Rule 32 collateral proceeding,” and under Quince v. Crosby, 360 F.3d 

1259, 1262 (11th Cir. 2004), “a finding of a constitutional violation in that 

proceeding would not entitle him to relief from his sentence or conviction.” (Doc. 

9, p. 3). In his objections to Judge England’s report, Mr. Darby challenges certain 

characterizations of his habeas argument in the report and emphasizes that his 

actual innocence claim is “directly related to his detention,” such that Quince

should not bar his federal habeas petition. (See Doc. 12, pp. 5-11). 

In Quince v. Crosby, 360 F.3d 1259, 1262 (11th Cir. 2004), the Eleventh 

Circuit held that “an alleged defect in a collateral proceeding does not state a basis 

for habeas relief.” The Eleventh Circuit explained, however, that a petitioner can 

argue “that there was a deficiency which rendered the state court proceedings not 

full and fair. Such a deficiency might deprive the state of the presumption of 

correctness with respect to the findings of” the state court judge. Id. 

Judge England properly found that Mr. Darby’s federal habeas petition does 

not attack the validity of Darby’s state conviction or sentence but instead pertains 

to the fairness of Mr. Darby’s fourth Rule 32 collateral proceeding. Admittedly, if 

Mr. Darby could establish actual innocence in the Rule 32 proceeding, the result 

Case 7:14-cv-01373-MHH-JHE Document 13 Filed 06/24/15 Page 3 of 8
4

would have a direct impact on his detention, but the fact remains that his federal 

petition addresses the lack of due process in a state collateral proceeding, not 

Darby’s state detention. Therefore, the Court overrules Mr. Darby’s objections to 

the Report and Recommendation. 

Giving Mr. Darby the benefit of the doubt and assuming that his due process 

challenge is tantamount to an argument under Quince that there was a deficiency in 

his fourth Rule 32 proceeding “which rendered the state court proceedings not full 

and fair,” thus depriving the state court decision of the presumption of correctness 

with respect to the findings of the state court judge, the Court still overrules Mr. 

Darby’s objections. Such a challenge under Quince fails because the Alabama 

Court of Criminal Appeals properly considered and resolved Mr. Darby’s fairness 

argument. 

As Mr. Darby recognized in his objections, the Alabama Court of Criminal 

Appeals held that “the failure of a circuit court to serve its orders on a Rule 32 

petitioner or his or her counsel . . . is a denial of due process,” and the Court of 

Criminal Appeals acknowledged that Mr. Darby did not receive a copy of the 

circuit court’s 30-day order until after the 30 days in which the circuit court gave 

him an opportunity to amend his Rule 32 petition expired. (Doc. 12, pp. 6-7; see 

also Doc. 1, p. 43). Nevertheless, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial 

court’s decision because the Court of Criminal Appeals found that any error was 

Case 7:14-cv-01373-MHH-JHE Document 13 Filed 06/24/15 Page 4 of 8
5

“harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and did not affect Darby’s substantial 

rights.” Ex parte Darby, CR-12-0847, p. 9 (Ala. Crim. App. Oct. 2, 2013).1 The

Court of Criminal Appeals pointed out that even though Mr. Darby did not receive 

the trial court order that gave him 30 days to amend his Rule 32 petition, Mr. 

Darby unilaterally filed multiple amendments to his petition after the trial court 

entered the 30-day order.2 The trial court considered all of these amendments 

before it dismissed Mr. Darby’s Rule 32 petition. (Id.) Therefore, Mr. Darby was 

not harmed by the delayed distribution of the trial court’s 30-day order. 

The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals added that the trial court error was 

harmless because of the nature of the new evidence that Mr. Darby identified. The 

state appellate court explained that under Rule 32 of the Alabama Rules of 

Criminal Procedure, to receive relief from a conviction or sentence on the basis of 

“newly discovered material facts,” a defendant cannot rely on new facts that

“merely amount to impeachment evidence.” The Court of Criminal Appeals found 

 

1 The Court takes judicial notice of the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals’s decision. See 

Horne v. Potter, 392 Fed. Appx. 800, 802 (11th Cir. 2010) (district court properly took judicial 

notice of documents related to the plaintiff’s previous civil action because the documents “were 

public records that were ‘not subject to reasonable dispute’ because they were ‘capable of 

accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy could not reasonably be 

questioned.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); other internal citations omitted). The state court 

appellate decision is available on the Alacourt website. A copy of the decision is attached to this 

opinion as Appendix A. 

2 On November 9, 2012, Mr. Darby filed an “Amendment to Clarify Pleading.” On November 

16, 2012, Mr. Darby filed a second “Amendment to Pleading.” On December 7, 2012, Mr. 

Darby amended his petition a third time, filing a “Motion to Amend Rule 32 Petition by Adding 

a Pleading Pursuant to Rule 32.7(b), A. R. Cr. P.” Darby, CR-12-0847 at p. 4.

Case 7:14-cv-01373-MHH-JHE Document 13 Filed 06/24/15 Page 5 of 8
6

that Mr. Darby’s newly discovered evidence pertained to “the credibility of the 

victims” such that the new facts constituted “impeachment evidence” under Rule 

32.1. Darby, CR-12-0847 at pp. 12-13 (citing Ala. R. Crim. P. 32.1(e)(3)). As a 

result, Mr. Darby’s newly discovered evidence could not provide a basis for relief 

from his conviction or sentence under Alabama law. 

The undersigned has reviewed the new evidence that Mr. Darby submitted 

with his filings in this court and finds that it is, as the Alabama Court of Criminal 

Appeals recognized, impeachment evidence. Indeed, Mr. Darby argues in his 

federal habeas petition that “[t]he newly discovered evidence has exposed the 

State’s case against Darby as merely an intentional deception by it’s [sic] 

witnesses, that based on the newly discovered evidence none of the accusations 

against him can be possible, and that the actions of the state’s witnesses are 

criminal.” (Doc. 1, p. 14). Mr. Darby wishes to present his newly discovered 

evidence in a Rule 32 petition to establish that “the state’s only evidence that a 

crime had occurred was through the testimony of their witnesses” and “[h]ad the 

jury known at the time of trial, based on this newly discovered, they [] had been 

deliberately deceived, and the facts in issue upon which the victims based [their] 

cause of action was not possible. The jury could not have convicted Darby beyond 

a reasonable doubt.” (Doc. 8, p. 4). Under Rule 32 of the Alabama Rules of 

Criminal Procedure, this impeachment evidence would not give Mr. Darby a basis 

Case 7:14-cv-01373-MHH-JHE Document 13 Filed 06/24/15 Page 6 of 8
7

for relief from his conviction or sentence. Ala. R. Crim. P. 32.1(e). Consequently, 

any flaw in Mr. Darby’s fourth Rule 32 proceeding does not provide a basis for 

federal habeas relief under Quince under any scenario.3 

III. CONCLUSION

The Court has considered the entire file in this action, together with the 

Report and Recommendation, and has reached an independent conclusion that Mr. 

Darby’s federal habeas petition should be dismissed for the reasons stated in the 

Report and Recommendation and for the reasons discussed in this memorandum 

opinion. Accordingly, the Court adopts the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and holds that Mr. Darby’s petition for writ of habeas corpus should be 

DISMISSED. The Court will enter a separate final order consistent with this 

memorandum opinion.

This Court may issue a certificate of appealability “only if the applicant has 

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 

2253(c)(2). To make such a showing, a “petitioner must demonstrate that 

reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

 

3 This analysis resolves Mr. Darby’s objections to the magistrate judge’s analysis of Counts I, II, 

and III of Mr. Darby’s habeas petition. In his objections, Mr. Darby concedes that his fifth claim 

for habeas relief “could have been raised in his first federal habeas petition,” and he 

acknowledges that the Court should dismiss that claim for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. 12, p. 16). 

The Court overrules Mr. Darby’s objection to Judge England’s analysis of Mr. Darby’s fourth 

claim. The Court accepts Judge England’s recommendation that the Court should dismiss for 

lack of subject matter jurisdiction Mr. Darby’s claim for ineffective assistance of trial counsel. 

(Doc. 9, pp. 6-7).

Case 7:14-cv-01373-MHH-JHE Document 13 Filed 06/24/15 Page 7 of 8
8

claims debatable or wrong,” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000), or that 

“the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further,” 

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (internal quotations omitted). The

Court finds that Mr. Darby’s constitutional claims do not satisfy either standard. 

Therefore, the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability to Mr. Darby. Mr. 

Darby may request a certificate of appealability from the Eleventh Circuit Court of 

Appeals. See Rule 22, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 22; Rule 11, Rules 

Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.

DONE and ORDERED this June 24, 2015.

 _________________________________

 MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 7:14-cv-01373-MHH-JHE Document 13 Filed 06/24/15 Page 8 of 8