Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_14-cv-00100/USCOURTS-almd-2_14-cv-00100-0/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

NORTHERN DIVISION

CLINTON J. PEARSON, JR., # 155536, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

 v. ) Civil Action No. 2:14cv100-MEF

) (WO) 

GARY HETZEL, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

filed on February 14, 2014, by Clinton Pearson, Jr. (“Pearson”), a state inmate currently

incarcerated at the Holman Correctional Facility. In his petition (Doc. No. 1), Pearson

challenges the convictions, pursuant to his guilty plea, on three counts of first-degree robbery

imposed upon him by the Circuit Court of MontgomeryCounty, Alabama, on March 3, 1997. 

The trial court sentenced Pearson to life on each conviction to run concurrently. See Pearson

v. Bullard, et al., Civil Action No. 2:02cv924-WHA (M.D. Ala. 2002).

I. DISCUSSION

The instant habeas petition represents Pearson’s fifth such attempt at challenging the

merits of his robbery convictions entered against him by the Circuit Court of Montgomery

County in 1997. Pearson’s most recent prior federal habeas petition, filed on June 26, 2013,

was denied and dismissed as successive on August 7, 2013. See Pearson v. Patterson, et al.,

Civil Action No. 2:13cv454-WHA (M.D. Ala. 2013).

Case 2:14-cv-00100-MEF-SRW Document 4 Filed 02/24/14 Page 1 of 4
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 (C). 

It appears from the pleadings filed by Pearson that he has not received an order from a threejudge panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals authorizing this court to consider a

successive application for habeas relief. “Because this undertaking [is Pearson’s] [fifth]

habeas corpus petition and because he 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). th

Consequently, the instant petition for habeas corpus relief should be denied and this case

summarily dismissed. Id. at 934.

II. 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 Pearson on

2

Case 2:14-cv-00100-MEF-SRW Document 4 Filed 02/24/14 Page 2 of 4
February 14, 2014, be DENIED.

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

U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) as Pearson 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 10, 2014, Petitioner may file an objection to the

Recommendation. Any objection filed must specifically identify the findings in the

Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which Petitioner objects. Frivolous, conclusive or

general objections will not be considered by the District Court. Petitioner is advised that this

Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable.

Failure to file a written objection 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 (5 Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d th

33 (11 Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 Cir. 1981) (en th th

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.

3

Case 2:14-cv-00100-MEF-SRW Document 4 Filed 02/24/14 Page 3 of 4
DONE, this 24 day of February, 2014.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 2:14-cv-00100-MEF-SRW Document 4 Filed 02/24/14 Page 4 of 4