Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_09-cv-00508/USCOURTS-alsd-1_09-cv-00508-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Grantt Culliver
Respondent
Anthony Jones
Petitioner

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANTHONY JONES, : 

Petitioner, : 

v. : CIVIL ACTION 09-0508-CG-M 

GRANTT CULLIVER, : 

Respondent. : 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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

inmate that 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 denied as this

Court does not have jurisdiction over it, that this action be

dismissed, and that judgment be entered in favor of Respondent

Grantt Culliver and against Petitioner Anthony Jones on all

claims.

Petitioner was convicted of kidnapping, sodomy, and rape,

all in the first degree, on May 24, 2001 in the Mobile County

Circuit Court for which he received a life sentence without the

possibility of parole in the State penitentiary for each

conviction (Doc. 4, pp. 1-2; Doc. 13, p. 1). Appeal was made to

the Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama which affirmed the

Case 1:09-cv-00508-CG-M Document 16 Filed 01/06/10 Page 1 of 4
2

convictions and sentences (Doc. 4, p. 3); Jones sought certiorari

in the Alabama Supreme Court, but it was denied (id.). 

Petitioner filed a habeas petition in this Court on these

same conviction on November 30, 2005; a recommendation was

entered that the petition be dismissed as the claims therein were

barred by the one-year statute of limitations provisions of the

Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1966. Jones v.

Culliver, Civil Action 05-0712-KD-B (S.D. Ala. November 25, 2008)

(Doc. 22). On January 9, 2009, U.S. District Judge DuBose

adopted the report and recommendation and entered judgment

against Jones (id. at Docs. 26-27). Petitioner appealed that

decision but his motion for a certificate of deniability was

denied (id. at Doc. 37).

On August 25, 2009, Petitioner filed the current habeas

petition, raising a claim that he was denied due process by the

State Courts in his Rule 32 petition (Doc. 4). Respondent

Answered the Complaint, asserting that this was a successive

petition and that Jones had failed to seek approval from the

Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to file it (Doc. 13).

The Court notes that this Court’s review is barred without a

certificate from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). In an Order instructing Petitioner to

address this issue, the Court noted that “[b]efore a second or

successive application permitted by this section is filed in the

district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court

Case 1:09-cv-00508-CG-M Document 16 Filed 01/06/10 Page 2 of 4
3

of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to

consider the application.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) (Doc. 14).

The Court notes that Petitioner has provided no evidence

that he has been given the authority to file this action (Doc.

15). Because Petitioner has filed a successive habeas petition,

without first obtaining authorization from the Eleventh Circuit

Court of Appeals to do so, this Court is without jurisdiction to

rule on it. 

Therefore, it is recommended that this habeas petition be

dismissed as this Court does not have jurisdiction to review it.

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 fourteen 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 fourteen 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

Case 1:09-cv-00508-CG-M Document 16 Filed 01/06/10 Page 3 of 4
4

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

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 6th day of January, 2010.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00508-CG-M Document 16 Filed 01/06/10 Page 4 of 4