Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_13-cv-00111/USCOURTS-almd-2_13-cv-00111-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

JEFFERY JAMES JACKSON, )

 )

Petitioner, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-CV-111-WHA

 )

CARTER DAVENPORT, WARDEN, )

and LUTHER STRANGE, ATTORNEY )

GENERAL, )

 )

Respondents. )

ORDER

This case is before the court on Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #57) and 

the Plaintiff’s Objections (Doc. #58, #66) to the Recommendation.1

Following an independent evaluation and de novo review of the file in this case, the court 

finds that the objection is without merit and is due to be overruled. 

In his objection, the Petitioner does not assert a challenge to the Magistrate Judge’s 

determination that his habeas application is untimely. Petitioner’s objection focuses on his 

argument for actual innocence of the crime of felony murder as a “gateway” through which the 

court may consider his claims that are otherwise time-barred. 

Petitioner maintains there was an eyewitness at the crime scene known at the time that

was not called to testify at trial. The Magistrate Judge addressed this claim and rejected 

Petitioner’s arguments. In his Objection, Petitioner reiterates the same arguments he initially 

 

1 The court has construed the Petitioner’s February 24, 2016 filing (Doc. #66) as an Objection to the 

Recommendation.

Case 2:13-cv-00111-WHA-TFM Document 69 Filed 03/17/16 Page 1 of 2
presented. The court agrees that the purported testimony of the uncalled eyewitness fails to 

establish his actual innocence. 

In addition, the Petitioner objects to the Recommendation on the grounds that the court 

failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing, conduct discovery, and address all claims raised in his 

petition. The Magistrate Judge properly did not address these issues as it was determined that the 

petition was time-barred under 28 U.S.C. §2244(d).

Accordingly, the objection is OVERRULED, and the court ADOPTS the 

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the petition for habeas corpus is DENIED as it was not filed 

within the period of limitation established by applicable federal law and the case is DISMISSED 

with prejudice. 

Done this 17th day of March, 2016. 

/s/ W. Harold Albritton

W. HAROLD ALBRITTON 

SENIOR UNTIED STATE DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:13-cv-00111-WHA-TFM Document 69 Filed 03/17/16 Page 2 of 2