Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00438/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00438-0/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 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

LARRY W. LANIER, : 

Petitioner, : 

v. : CIVIL ACTION 06-00438-CG-B

GRANT CULLIVER, : 

Respondent. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This is an action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by an

Alabama prison inmate, which has been referred for report and

recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Local Rule

72.2(c)(4), and Rule 8 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

This action is now ready for consideration. The record is adequate

to determine Petitioner’s claim; thus, no federal evidentiary

hearing is required. Kelley v. Secretary for Dept. of Corrections,

377 F.3d 1317, 1333-35 (11th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1149

(2005). Upon careful consideration, it is recommended that the

petition be dismissed as a successive petition under 28 U.S.C. §

2244(b)(3)(A) because the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider it.

I. NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS.

Petitioner was convicted of first-degree kidnapping and firstdegree robbery in the Circuit Court of Baldwin County, Alabama, on

January 10, 1995, for which he received a sentence of life without

the possibility of parole pursuant to the Alabama Habitual Felony

Offender Act. (Doc. 1, p. 2; Doc. 9, p. 2). Petitioner’s

Case 1:06-cv-00438-CG-B Document 13 Filed 12/27/07 Page 1 of 6
1

Petitioner acknowledges, in his Response to Respondent’s Answer,

that he previously filed a habeas petition in this Court. (Doc. 10).

2

conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal by the Alabama

Court of Criminal Appeals in an unpublished memorandum opinion on

July 28, 1995. (Doc. 9, p. 2). Petitioner did not file a petition

for writ of certiorari to the Alabama Supreme Court, and the

Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals issued a certificate of judgment

on August 15, 1995. (Doc. 9, Ex. B). Subsequently, Petitioner

filed an unsuccessful Rule 32 petition on July 1, 1997. (Id.). 

On October 21, 1999, Petitioner filed a habeas petition in

this Court, namely Lanier v. Jones, CA No. 99-0955-BH-M.1

Petitioner raised the following claims in his 1999 petition:

(1) His attorney rendered ineffective assistance; (2) the

trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter judgment and

sentence him; (3) the state court did not follow proper

procedures in processing his Rule 32 petition; (4) the

state, in trying him, violated the dual sovereignty

doctrine; (5) his conviction was the result of an

unlawful arrest, search, and seizure; (6) his conviction

violated the doctrine of double jeopardy; and, (7) the

prosecutor did not divulge certain information which

would have been helpful to him at his trial.

(Doc. 9, Ex. B, p. 2). By Order dated August 2, 2000, this Court

determined that Petitioner’s claims were time-barred and issued an

Case 1:06-cv-00438-CG-B Document 13 Filed 12/27/07 Page 2 of 6
3

order dismissing Petitioner’s habeas petition. (Doc. 9, Ex. C).

Petitioner raises two claims in the instant habeas petition.

(Doc. 1, p. 7). First, Petitioner claims that his due process

rights were violated when, at trial, the jury was never sworn. 

Second, Petitioner claims that the state court conducted hearings

in violation of Alabama law, where no counsel for the State

appeared, thereby permitting the presiding judge to serve as both

judge and prosecutor. (Id.). According to Petitioner, both claims

were raised in the Rule 32 petition but not on direct appeal. (Id.

at 7-8). 

Respondent contends that the instant habeas petition should be

dismissed because, having previously filed a petition for habeas

relief in this court, Petitioner was required to apply to the

Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals for leave in order to pursue the

instant successive habeas petition. According to Respondent, this

Court lacks jurisdiction to review this petition pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) without authorization from the Eleventh

Circuit Court of Appeals. (Doc. 9, p. 3).

II. ANALYSIS.

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996

(“ADEPA”) added the provision under 28 U.S.C. §2244(b)(3)(A) which

requires that “‘[b]efore a second or successive application [for a

writ of habeas corpus] is filed in the district court, the

applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an

Case 1:06-cv-00438-CG-B Document 13 Filed 12/27/07 Page 3 of 6
4

order authorizing the district court to consider the application.’”

Guenther v. Holt, 173 F.3d 1328, 1330 (11th Cir. 1999) (quoting 28

U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A)), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1085 (2000).

Petitioner’s first habeas petition, as noted supra, was filed

on October 21, 1999. His current petition, filed on July 25, 2006,

is clearly a successive petition. As such, this Court lacks

jurisdiction to entertain the current petition absent Petitioner

first obtaining permission from the Eleventh Circuit Court of

Appeals. Hill v. Hopper, 112 F.3d 1088, 1089 (11th Cir.), cert.

denied, 520 U.S. 1203 (1997). The record in this case does not

reflect that Petitioner obtained an order from the Eleventh Circuit

authorizing this Court to consider the instant petition. U.S. v.

Holt, 417 F.3d 1172, 1175 (11th Cir. 2005); Farris v. U.S., 333

F.3d 1211, 1216 (11th Cir. 2003). Because Petitioner has not

applied to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals for permission to

file a second habeas petition, this Court lacks jurisdiction to

consider Petitioner's request for relief. Id.

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the undersigned Magistrate Judge recommends that

the present habeas corpus petition be dismissed due to Petitioner's

failure to comply with 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).

The attached sheet contains important information regarding

objections to the report and recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge.

Case 1:06-cv-00438-CG-B Document 13 Filed 12/27/07 Page 4 of 6
5

DONE this the 27th day of December, 2007.

 /S/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00438-CG-B Document 13 Filed 12/27/07 Page 5 of 6
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS

AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION

AND FINDINGS CONCERNING NEED FOR TRANSCRIPT

1. Objection. Any party who objects to this recommendation or

anything in it must, within ten days of the date of service of this

document, file specific written objections with the clerk of court.

Failure to do so will bar a de novo determination by the district

judge of anything in the recommendation and will bar an attack, on

appeal, of the factual findings of the magistrate judge. See 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)( c); Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736, 738 (11th

Cir. 1988); Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. Unit B,

1982)(en banc). The procedure for challenging the findings and

recommendations of the magistrate judge is set out in more detail

in SD ALA LR 72.4 (June 1, 1997), which provides that:

A party may object to a recommendation entered by a

magistrate judge in a dispositive matter, that is, a

matter excepted by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), by filing a

“Statement of Objection to Magistrate Judge’s

Recommendation” within ten days after being served with

a copy of the recommendation, unless a different time is

established by order. The statement of objection shall

specify those portions of the recommendation to which

objection is made and the basis for the objection. The

objecting party shall submit to the district judge, at

the time of filing the objection, a brief setting forth

the party’s arguments that the magistrate judge’s

recommendation should be reviewed de novo and a different

disposition made. It is insufficient to submit only a

copy of the original brief submitted to the magistrate

judge, although a copy of the original brief may be

submitted or referred to and incorporated into the brief

in support of the objection. Failure to submit a brief

in support of the objection may be deemed an abandonment

of the objection.

A magistrate judge’s recommendation cannot be appealed to a

Court of Appeals; only the district judge’s order or judgment can

be appealed.

2. Transcript (applicable where proceedings tape recorded).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the magistrate

judge finds that the tapes and original records in this action are

adequate for purposes of review. Any party planning to object to

this recommendation, but unable to pay the fee for a transcript, is

advised that a judicial determination that transcription is

necessary is required before the United States will pay the cost of

the transcript.

Case 1:06-cv-00438-CG-B Document 13 Filed 12/27/07 Page 6 of 6