Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00273/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00273-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jackie Curtis Haynes
Petitioner
Ralph Hooks
Respondent

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JACKIE CURTIS HAYNES, : 

Petitioner, : 

v. : CIVIL ACTION 06-0273-BH-M 

RALPH HOOKS, : 

Respondent. : 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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

inmate which 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, that this

action be dismissed, and that judgment be entered in favor of

Respondent Ralph Hooks and against Petitioner Jackie Curtis

Haynes on all claims.

Petitioner was convicted of first degree rape on April 22,

1982, in the Mobile County Circuit Court for which he received a

sentence of life without parole in the State penitentiary (Doc.

1, pp. 1-2; Doc. 10, p. 1). Appeal was made to the Court of

Criminal Appeals of Alabama which affirmed the conviction and

sentence. Haynes v. State, 424 So.2d 669 (Ala. Crim. App. 1982). 

Case 1:06-cv-00273-BH-M Document 13 Filed 08/08/06 Page 1 of 5
1

Petitioner initiated this action on April 25, 2006 with the

signing and mailing of this habeas petition; it was not actually filed

in this Court until May 1, 2006 (Doc. 1).

2

Haynes sought certiorari in the Alabama Supreme Court, but it was

denied (Doc. 10, Exhibit B). 

Petitioner filed a complaint with this Court on April 25,

2006,1 raising the following claims: (1) The sentence imposed

against him was illegal because the trial court was without

jurisdiction to render it; and (2) the sentence against him

exceeded the maximum authorized sentence (Doc. 1). 

Respondent has argued that this action should be dismissed

because this Court’s review is barred without a certificate from

the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2244(b) as Haynes has previously filed two federal habeas

petitions (Doc. 10). Respondent has shown that Haynes’s first

petition was dismissed because some of the claims were

procedurally defaulted and the balance of the claims were without

merit (Doc. 10, pp. 2-3; Exhibits C, D). Haynes v. Jones, Civil

Action 86-0782-AH-C (S.D. Ala. June 22, 1989). The Eleventh

Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this Court’s dismissal of that

action and the U.S. Supreme Court denied Haynes’s petition for

writ of certiorari (Doc. 10, Exhibit E, F). Respondent has also

shown that Petitioner’s second federal habeas petition was denied

with prejudice (Doc. 10, p. 3). Haynes v. Sutton, Civil Action

95-0334-AH-C (S.D. Ala. May 19, 1996). 

Case 1:06-cv-00273-BH-M Document 13 Filed 08/08/06 Page 2 of 5
2

The Court also notes that Respondent has asserted that this

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

the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 which

amended, in pertinent part, 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Doc. 10, pp. 5-6). 

Because this Court lacks jurisdiction over this action, the Court

cannot reach a decision on this issue.

3

Respondent now asserts that this petition should be

dismissed as it is successive (Doc. 10, pp. 3-4). The statute to

which Respondent refers states the following: “Before a second

or successive application permitted by this section is filed in

the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate

court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to

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

The Court first notes that Petitioner denied in his habeas

petition that he has filed a previous habeas petition dealing

with these same convictions (Doc. 1, p. 9-10, ¶ 14). Court

records clearly indicate otherwise. 

Because Petitioner filed his third habeas petition here,

without first obtaining authorization from the Eleventh Circuit

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

rule on it. Though Petitioner has requested that this Court stay

this action until he can seek permission from the Eleventh

Circuit Court of Appeals to proceed (Doc. 12, p. 2), this Court

is without jurisdiction to grant such a request.

Therefore, it is recommended that this habeas petition be

dismissed as this Court does not have jurisdiction to review it2

and that judgment be entered in favor of Respondent Ralph Hooks

Case 1:06-cv-00273-BH-M Document 13 Filed 08/08/06 Page 3 of 5
4

and against Petitioner Jackie Curtis Haynes on all claims.

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 ten 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 ten 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 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

Case 1:06-cv-00273-BH-M Document 13 Filed 08/08/06 Page 4 of 5
5

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 8th day of August, 2006.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00273-BH-M Document 13 Filed 08/08/06 Page 5 of 5