Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_13-cv-00784/USCOURTS-almd-2_13-cv-00784-1/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 

FORTHE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

ARTHUR BRENNAN MALLOY, #101329, ) 

 ) 

 Petitioner, ) 

 ) 

vs. ) CASE NO. 2:13-cv-784-WHA 

 ) 

CARTER F. DAVENPORT, et al., ) (wo) 

 ) 

 Respondents. ) 

ORDER

 This case is before the court on the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #25), 

and the Petitioner’s Objection (Doc. #26). The court has conducted an independent evaluation 

and de novo review of the file in this case and, having done so, concludes that the objection is 

without merit. 

 Malloy, who is serving a sentence of life without parole as a habitual offender, argues 

that the Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles must render a (favorable) decision on his pardon 

application. There is no statutory requirement that the Board "act on" his application, and, in any 

event, Malloy has never submitted to the Board the requisite materials for receiving a pardon. 

Malloy has never obtained or submitted the written approval of the judge who tried his case, the 

district attorney, or a circuit judge in the circuit where he was convicted — a requirement under 

Ala. Code § 15-22-36(c). He falsely claims that his pardon application was supported by 

admitted facts from the district attorney. The district attorney's failure to respond to Malloy's 

request for admissions (which the DA was not obligated to respond to) does not constitute an 

admission of facts, despite what Malloy says. Finally, as noted in the Recommendation, even if 

Case 2:13-cv-00784-WHA-GMB Document 27 Filed 04/26/16 Page 1 of 2
Malloy had submitted all the necessary materials, he has no liberty interest in receiving a pardon. 

Nor does he have a liberty interest in having the Board formally deny his pardon application. 

Alabama's pardons statute is framed in discretionary terms. 

 Malloy also reargues his claim that he submitted proof of his innocence to the Board. He 

did not. His claim of "innocence" is based on a flawed legal argument that has been several 

times rejected by the courts. Essentially, he argues that because the State's evidence showed he 

was acting as a lookout in the robbery, he did not have the requisite intent to be convicted of the 

robbery. 

 Finally, Malloy claims that the denial of a pardon in his case violated his right to equal 

protection because a white convicted felon, former Alabama Governor Guy Hunt (who was 

convicted of a state ethics violation), was granted a pardon. Malloy did not mention the Hunt 

case when presenting his cursory equal protection claim in his 2254 petition. Moreover, Malloy 

does not demonstrate that he and Hunt were similarly situated. Nor does he show that Hunt, 

unlike him, failed to submit the required materials for being considered for a pardon. 

 Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 

 1. The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED. 

 2. This petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DENIED. 

 3. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice, because Malloy establishes no basis for 

federal habeas corpus relief. 

 DONE this 26th day of April, 2016. 

 /s/ W. Harold Albritton 

 W. HAROLD ALBRITTON 

 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:13-cv-00784-WHA-GMB Document 27 Filed 04/26/16 Page 2 of 2