Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00706/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00706-0/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

The Court notes that Petitioner has not been forthright in

completing the habeas petition, so much of the information has been

provided in Respondent’s Answer.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

GLYNIS BETHEL, : 

Petitioner, : 

v. : 

CIVIL ACTION 06-0706-KD-M 

RUSSELL WATSON, et al., : 

Respondent. : 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This is an action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by an Alabama

inmate which was 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 state record is adequate to determine

Petitioner's claims; no federal evidentiary hearing is required. 

It is recommended that this habeas petition be dismissed, without

prejudice, so that Petitioner can exhaust her State remedies.

On February 2, 2006, Petitioner was found guilty, in the

Loxley Municipal Court, of four counts of reckless endangerment

and one count each of reckless driving and attempting to elude a

police officer (Doc. 11, pp. 1-2 and Attachment; cf. Doc. 41

). 

Appeal was immediately made to the Baldwin County Circuit Court

(see Doc. 11, pp. 1-2; see also Doc. 4, p. 3). Bethel also filed

Case 1:06-cv-00706-KD-M Document 14 Filed 03/09/07 Page 1 of 5
2

Respondent indicated that this appeal “was premature because the

cases are still pending in the Baldwin County Circuit Court” (Doc. 11,

p. 2). The Court notes that Respondent filed no exhibits to support

this assertion.

3

The Court has counted a minimum of fourteen claims, though many

of them are made up of contiguous and interloping parts of other

claims (see Doc. 4).

2

an appeal with the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals (Doc. 4, p.

3).2 Petitioner filed a complaint with this Court on October 20,

2006, raising numerous claims3 which will not be set out herein

(see Docs. 1, 4). 

Respondent has answered the petition, asserting that

Petitioner has brought this action prematurely as she still has

State remedies available to her (Doc. 11, pp. 3-5). More

pointedly, Respondent asserts that the direct appeal of the

convictions is presently before the Baldwin County Circuit Court,

waiting for its dispensation (id.). 

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has addressed this

issue as follows:

A federal court will not grant habeas

corpus relief to a person held in custody

pursuant to a state court judgment unless it

appears that the applicant has exhausted

remedies available to [her] in the state

courts. Bufalino v. Reno, 613 F.2d 568, 670

(5th Cir. 1980); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) (1976). 

The exhaustion requirement, however, does not

require the prisoner to seek collateral

review from the state judiciary of the same

issues already raised on direct appeal. Cobb

v. Wainwright, 666 F.2d 966, 969 n.3 (5th

Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ---, 102 S.Ct.

2906, 73 L.Ed.2d 1315 (1982); Burton v.

Oliver, 599 F.2d 49, 50 (5th Cir. 1979).

Case 1:06-cv-00706-KD-M Document 14 Filed 03/09/07 Page 2 of 5
4

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, in Footman v. Singletary,

978 F.2d 1207, 1210 (11th Cir.1992), held that the United States

Supreme Court, in Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 7-10 (1992), had

effectively overruled Brand. That overruling, however, dealt with the

issue of whether an appellate court could entertain several particular

ineffective assistance of counsel claims when all particulars of that

claim had not been raised in the state courts; it has no effect on

this action. See Footman, 978 F.2d at 1210.

3

Walker v. Zant, 693 F.2d 1087 (11th Cir. 1982). "The Supreme

Court has held that the exhaustion requirement is met when an

issue is properly presented to a state tribunal, regardless of

how fully that body considers the claim." Brand v. Lewis, 784

F.2d 1515 (11th Cir. 1986)4

 (citing Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S.

270, 275-76 (1971)).

Alabama law provides for direct appeal of a municipal court

conviction “to the circuit court for a trial de novo.” 

Ala.R.Crim.P. 30.1(a). Bethel admits that she has appealed her

convictions to the Baldwin County Circuit Court (Doc. 4, p. 3);

that court, however, has apparently not issued a decision.

Petitioner has replied to Respondent’s assertion of nonexhaustion by casting aspersions and name-calling (Doc. 13). The

Court, however, finds nothing there to substantiate her assertion

that the Loxley proceedings were irrelevant and improper. 

Furthermore, Bethel has failed to instruct this Court as to why

she should not have to exhaust her State remedies before

proceeding in this Court; the Court, in its own research, has

found nothing applicable either.

Case 1:06-cv-00706-KD-M Document 14 Filed 03/09/07 Page 3 of 5
4

Therefore, after a thorough review of the record, the Court

finds that Respondent is correct in asserting that Petitioner has

failed to exhaust State remedies yet available to her. For that

reason, it is recommended that this action be dismissed, without

prejudice, so that Petitioner can exhaust her State remedies.

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

Case 1:06-cv-00706-KD-M Document 14 Filed 03/09/07 Page 4 of 5
5

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.

DONE this 9th day of March, 2007.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00706-KD-M Document 14 Filed 03/09/07 Page 5 of 5