Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-7_18-cv-01389/USCOURTS-alnd-7_18-cv-01389-0/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 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

WESTERN DIVISION

JAMES EDWARD WALLACE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) Case No. 7:18-cv-01389-KOB-GMB

) 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE )

STATE OF ALABAMA, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

James Edward Wallace, an Alabama state prisoner, filed this habeas corpus 

action pro se pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1). On December 13, 2019, the 

magistrate judge entered a report and recommendation that this action be dismissed 

without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction because Wallace’s petition amounts to a

successive § 2254 application for which he lacks authorization from the Eleventh

Circuit, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). (Doc. 6). On December 26, 2019, the 

plaintiff filed timely objections. (Doc. 7). 

The petitioner received full pardons of his state-court convictions on 

November 2, 1987 and again on October 26, 1998.

1 (Doc. 7 at 2). He asserts that

1 On November 2, 1987, the petitioner received a pardon on a conviction for receiving stolen 

property, and on October 26, 1998 the petitioner received pardons for a 1990 possession of 

marijuana conviction, Case No. CC 89-119 (Bibb Co., Ala.), and receiving stolen property, Case 

No. CC83-81 (Bibb Co., Ala.). See State v. Wallace, 07-CC-1998-000140.00, at Doc. 1. 

FILED

 2020 Feb-14 PM 04:01

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 7:18-cv-01389-KOB-GMB Document 8 Filed 02/14/20 Page 1 of 3
his sentences in Wallace v. State of Alabama, 07-CC-1998-000140.00 and 07-CC1998-000141.00, for second degree kidnapping and first degree sexual abuse, were 

illegally enhanced based on those pardoned crimes. (Doc. 7 at 2–3). The petitioner 

states that his claims are jurisdictional and, therefore, not limited by Rule 32, the 

statute of limitations, or successive petition bars. (Doc. 7 at 2). The petitioner further 

asserts that a new rule of law proves the circuit court did not have jurisdiction in two 

of his convictions. (Doc. 7 at 3). 

None of these arguments impact whether this petition is successive for 

purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Regardless of the merit in his petition, this 

court lacks jurisdiction to consider it until the Eleventh Circuit authorizes the filing 

of a successive petition. See e.g., Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 152–53 (2007); 

In re Bradford, 830 F.3d 1273, 1277 (11th Cir. 2016) (stating that “when a petitioner 

fails to seek permission from the court of appeals to file a second or successive 

petition, the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider it”). 

Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the 

court file, including the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, and the 

petitioner’s objections, the court finds that the objections are due to be 

OVERRULED. The court ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s findings and ACCEPTS 

his recommendation. Wallace’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus is due to be 

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, for lack of jurisdiction. 

Case 7:18-cv-01389-KOB-GMB Document 8 Filed 02/14/20 Page 2 of 3
The court will enter a separate Final Order.

DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of February, 2020.

____________________________________

KARON OWEN BOWDRE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 7:18-cv-01389-KOB-GMB Document 8 Filed 02/14/20 Page 3 of 3