Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_14-cv-02344/USCOURTS-alnd-2_14-cv-02344-0/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)

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ALONZO HOUSTON,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF ALABAMA and the

ATTORNEY GENERAL of the STATE

OF ALABAMA,

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 2:14-cv-02344-SLB-SGC

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an action on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254 by Alonzo Houston, proceeding pro se. (Doc. 1). The magistrate

judge entered a report and recommendation on December 7, 2015,recommending the

petition be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) because it is a successive

petition and Houston has failed to obtain an authorizing order from the Eleventh

Circuit Court of Appeals. (Doc. 8). In the alternative, the magistrate judge

recommended the petition be denied as barred by the statute of limitations provided

by § 2244(d)(1). (Id.). The magistrate judge further recommended Houston’s

request for an evidentiary hearing be denied. (Id.). Finally, in accordance with Rule

11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the magistrate judge recommended

a certificate of appealability be denied. (Id.).

FILED

 2016 Mar-11 PM 03:04

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:14-cv-02344-SLB-SGC Document 10 Filed 03/11/16 Page 1 of 3
Houston filed objections to the report and recommendation on December 28,

2015. (Doc. 9). The objections, which are lacking in clarity and coherence, largely

re-state allegations Houston has already presented and that the magistrate judge

considered and rejected. Houston’s re-statement of the allegations does not alter the

magistrate judge’s recommendations. To the extent the objections raise new

allegations or arguments, the new allegations or arguments do not save Houston’s §

2254 petition fromdismissal as an unauthorized successive petition or denial astimebarred. Nor do they demonstrate Houston is entitled to an evidentiary hearing. 

Accordingly, Houston’s objections are OVERRULED. 

After careful consideration of the record in this case and the magistrate judge’s

report, the court ADOPTS that report and ACCEPTS the magistrate judge’s

recommendations. Accordingly, Houston’s § 2254 petition is due to be dismissed

pursuant to § 2244(b)(3)(A) as an unauthorized successive petition. In the

alternative, the petition is due to be denied as time-barred pursuant to § 2244(d)(1).

Houston’srequest for an evidentiary hearing is DENIED. Finally, for the reasonsset

forth in the report and recommendation and pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 Proceedings, a certificate of appealability is DENIED.

2

Case 2:14-cv-02344-SLB-SGC Document 10 Filed 03/11/16 Page 2 of 3
A final judgment will be entered. 

DONE this 11th day of March, 2016.

SHARON LOVELACE BLACKBURN

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

3

Case 2:14-cv-02344-SLB-SGC Document 10 Filed 03/11/16 Page 3 of 3