Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_08-cv-00242/USCOURTS-almd-2_08-cv-00242-0/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 MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

 ____________________________

CARLOS RAYMOND WILLIAMS, *

Petitioner, * 

 v. * 2:08-CV-242-MEF

 (WO)

STATE OF ALABAMA, et al., *

Respondents. *

 ____________________________

ORDER

Respondents filed an answer on May 23, 2008 in accordance with the provisions of

Rule 5, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. (Doc. No.

11.) They contend therein that the present habeas corpus petition is due to be denied because

the claims presented by Petitioner provide no basis for relief. Specifically, Respondents

argue that Petitioner’s challenge to the validity of certain evidence admitted at his trial

provides no basis for federal habeas relief. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67 (1991).

Respondents further argue that Petitioner’s challenge to the admissibility and sufficiency of

the evidence used to convict him entitles him to no relief because the state courts properly

adjudicated these issues adversely to him during his direct appeal proceedings. Williams v.

Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 404-405 (2000). A claim which is properly adjudicated on the merits

by the state courts does not provide a basis for federal habeas relief. Id. 

In sum, § 2254(d)(1) places new constraints on the power of a federal court to grant

a state prisoner’s application for habeas corpus relief with respect to those claims adjudicated

Case 2:08-cv-00242-MEF-WC Document 13 Filed 06/02/08 Page 1 of 4
2

on the merits in state court. The statute allows this court to grant a writ of habeas corpus

only “if the relevant state-court decision was either (1) ‘contrary to ... clearly established

Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,’ or (2) ‘involved an

unreasonable application of ... clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme

Court of the United States.’ (Emphases added.)” Williams, 529 U.S. at 404-405. “Under §

2254(d)(1) and the Williams decision, [a federal court] can grant relief only if the state court

decision denying relief is ‘contrary to’ clearly established federal law or is an ‘unreasonable

application’ of federal law.” Brown v. Head, 272 F.3d 1308, 1313 (11th Cir. 2001). In the

vast majority of cases, a federal district court will be faced with the contention that the state

court unreasonably applied federal law. 

In determining whether the state court’s decision is an

unreasonable application of the law set out in [applicable]

Supreme Court decisions, we need not decide whether we would

have reached the same result as the state court if we had been

deciding the issue in the first instance. Instead, we decide only

whether the state court’s decision of the issue is objectively

unreasonably. See Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 411, 120

S.Ct. 1495, 1522, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000) (“Under

§2254(d)(1)’s ‘unreasonable application’ clause, then, a federal

habeas court may not issue the writ simply because that court

concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant statecourt decision applied clearly established federal law

erroneously or incorrectly. Rather, that application must also be

unreasonable.”); Brown v. Head, 272 F.3d 1308, [1313] (11th

Cir. 2001)(“It is the objective reasonableness, not the

correctness per se, of the state court decision that we are to

decide.”).

Wright v. Secretary for the Dept. of Corrections, 278 F.3d 1245, 1256 (11th Cir. 2002).

Additionally, the statute makes it clear that a federal court cannot grant relief with respect

Case 2:08-cv-00242-MEF-WC Document 13 Filed 06/02/08 Page 2 of 4
3

to claims adjudicated on the merits by the state courts “unless the adjudication of the claim

. . . resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in

light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). 

 Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that on or before June 23, 2008 Petitioner may file a response in

accordance with this order. Any pleadings, documents or evidence filed after this date will

not be considered by the court except in exceptional circumstances. Petitioner is advised that

at any time after June 23, 2008 the court shall “determine whether an evidentiary hearing is

required. If it appears that an evidentiary hearing is not required, the [court] shall make such

disposition of the petition as justice shall require.” Rule 8(a), Rules Governing Section 2254

Cases in the United States District Courts. 

Petitioner is instructed that when filing his response, he may file sworn affidavits or

other documents in support of his claims. Affidavits should set forth specific facts which

demonstrate that Petitioner is entitled to relief on the grounds presented in the habeas corpus

petition. If documents which have not previously been filed with the court are referred to in

the affidavits, sworn or certified copies of those papers must be attached to the affidavits or

served with them. When Petitioner attacks Respondents' answer by use of affidavits or other

documents, the court will, at the appropriate time, consider whether to expand the record to

include such materials. See Rule 7, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States

District Courts. 

Case 2:08-cv-00242-MEF-WC Document 13 Filed 06/02/08 Page 3 of 4
4

Done, this 2nd day of June 2008.

 /s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. 

WALLACE CAPEL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:08-cv-00242-MEF-WC Document 13 Filed 06/02/08 Page 4 of 4