Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_15-cv-00589/USCOURTS-alsd-1_15-cv-00589-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Anthony Marshall
Plaintiff
Cynthia Stewart
Respondent

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MICHAEL ANTHONY )

MARSHALL, )

 Plaintiff, ) 

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-589-WS-N

 )

CYNTHIA STEWART, )

 Respondent. )

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This action is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). Respondent Cynthia Stewart 

has filed and Answer (Doc. 12) and Petitioner has replied (Doc. 13). This 

matter is now ripe for the Court’s consideration and has been referred to the 

undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for Report and 

Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Rule 8(b) of the Rules 

Governing Section 2254 Cases, and Local Rule 72.2(c)(4). For the reasons 

explained herein, it is RECOMMENDED that Marshall’s Petition (Doc. 1) be 

DISMISSED without prejudice, for want of jurisdiction pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).1

BACKGROUND

Petitioner, Michael Anthony Marshall, is currently imprisoned at 

Fountain Correctional Facility serving a twenty-five year sentence for 

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1 This!Report!and!Recommendation!has!been!amended from!its!original!version!

(Doc.!17)!to!state!that!Marshall’s!Petition!is!“dismissed!without!prejudice”!rather!

than!“denied!and!dismissed!with!prejudice.”!!

Case 1:15-cv-00589-WS-N Document 19 Filed 10/25/16 Page 1 of 7
2

Murder and a ten year sentence for Assault in the Second Degree (to run 

concurrently). (Doc. 1 at 2, 16, 30). Marshalls’ sentence was imposed on July 

25, 1999, by the Circuit Court of Mobile County, Alabama following 

Marshall’s pleading guilty. (Id. at 29-30). Following his sentencing, 

Marshall filed a Motion to Withdraw his Plea, which was denied on February 

11, 2000, after a hearing. (Id. at 30.) Marshall appealed on March 27, 2000, 

but the appeal was dismissed as untimely. Marshall then filed a Motion to 

File an Untimely Appeal, which was also denied. (Id.)

On May 26, 2000, Marshall filed a motion for post conviction relief 

which was dismissed on December 6, 2000. (Id. at 31). Marshall appealed 

and the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial courts decision 

and issued a Certificate of Judgment on May 8, 2001. (Id. at 31). Marshall 

filed his second petition for post conviction relief on October 3, 2008, which 

was denied. He filed his third petition for post conviction relief on April 15, 

2005, which was again denied. (Id.) Marshall appealed and the Alabama 

Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the denial, the application for rehearing 

was overruled and the certificate of judgment of dismissal was issued on 

December 9, 2005. (Id. at 31-32). Petitioner filed his fourth petition for post 

conviction relief on July 13, 2012, and the petition was dismissed on April 18, 

2013. Petitioner appealed and the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals 

Case 1:15-cv-00589-WS-N Document 19 Filed 10/25/16 Page 2 of 7
3

dismissed the appeal as untimely and the Certificate of Judgment issued on 

August 9, 2013. (Id. at 32.)2 

In 2000, Marshall filed his first Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in this Court (CV-0000796-RV-L). (Doc. 12-1). 

The Magistrate Judge recommended that Marshall’s petition be dismissed 

without prejudice for failure to prosecute and comply with the Court’s order 

pursuant to Federal Rule 41(b). (Doc. 12-1). The recommendation was 

adopted by the District Court Judge on April 30, 2001. (Doc. 12-2).

On February 25, 2004, Marshall filed another Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in this Court (CV-04-0126-CBB). (Doc. 12-4). The Magistrate Judge recommended that the petition be 

dismissed with prejudice as time-barred because Marshall did not file the 

petition within the applicable one year statute of limitations or present 

evidence of extraordinary circumstances which would justify equitable 

tolling. (Id.) The recommendation was adopted by the District Judge and 

Marshall’s petition was denied on February 1, 2005. 

In September, 20153, Marshall filed the instant Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1) seeking relief from his 

conviction for Murder and Assault in the Second Degree from the Circuit 

Court of Mobile County. As grounds for relief, Marshall asserts actual 

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 2 Additional post conviction motions are referenced within the documents attached to 

Plaintiff’s Complaint. However, given the issue before this Court, any additional post 

conviction motions are inconsequential to the analysis herein below. 3 The date on which Plaintiff delivered the Petition to be mailed, which did not identify the 

exact day. 

Case 1:15-cv-00589-WS-N Document 19 Filed 10/25/16 Page 3 of 7
4

innocence. The instant petition stems from the same convictions which were

the subject of Marshall’s first two petitions. Respondent has answered 

asserting that Marshall’s petition is due to be denied as a second or 

successive petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).

DISCUSSION

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254 and 2244(b)(3)(A), as amended by §§ 105 

and 106 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 

(“AEDPA”), “ ‘[b]efore a second or successive application [for a writ of habeas 

corpus] 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.’ ” Guenther v. Holt, 173 F.3d 1328, 1330 (11th 

Cir.1999), quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1085, 120 

S.Ct. 811, 145 L.Ed.2d 683 (2000). “[T]he petitioner first must obtain an order 

from the court of appeals authorizing the district court to consider” a second 

or successive petition because “[w]ithout authorization, the district court 

lacks jurisdiction to consider [such] second or successive petition.” United 

States v. Holt, 417 F.3d 1172, 1175 (11th Cir.2005) (citations omitted); see 

also Tompkins v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 557 F .3d 1257, 1259 

(11th Cir.) (“Section 2244(b)(3)(A) requires a district court to dismiss for lack 

of jurisdiction a second or successive petition for a writ of habeas corpus 

unless the petitioner has obtained an order authorizing the district court to 

Case 1:15-cv-00589-WS-N Document 19 Filed 10/25/16 Page 4 of 7
5

consider it.”), cert. denied sub nom. Tompkins v. McNeil, ––– U .S. ––––, 129 

S.Ct. 1305, 173 L.Ed.2d 482 (2009).

Although this Court dismissed Marshall’s prior habeas action on 

statute of limitations grounds, such dismissal constitutes an adjudication on 

the merits for the purposes of invoking the second or successive requirements 

of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). Jordan v. Secretary, Dept. of Corrections, 485 F.3d 

1351, 1353 (11th Cir.2007) (requiring petitioner to obtain order from 

appellate court prior to filing second or successive § 2254 petition after first 

habeas petition was dismissed as untimely); Hutcherson v. Riley, 468 F.3d 

750, 755 (11th Cir.2006) (after failed, untimely § 2254 petition, petitioner 

must “satisfy the requirements under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)” in order to receive 

requisite authorization from appellate court to file successive habeas petition 

in district court);

In the present action, there is no question that Marshall’s instant 

petition is successive. There is, likewise, no evidence that Marshall obtained 

the requisite permission before filing the instant petition. In his reply, 

Marshall does not refute that his petition is successive or that he failed to 

obtain permission to file it. Rather, Marshall insists that his “two key issues 

are his ineffective assistance of counsel claims in the appellant (appeal) 

proceedings of his case as well as his actual innocence [sic] claim which 

cannot be dismissed as successive or time barred.” (Doc. 13 at 2). Marshall’s 

reply fails to set forth any valid reason why this Court is not prevented, for 

Case 1:15-cv-00589-WS-N Document 19 Filed 10/25/16 Page 5 of 7
6

lack of jurisdiction, from considering Marshall’s successive petition. See Hill 

v. Hopper, 112 F.3d 1088, 1089 (11th Cir.) (“Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), 

the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Appellant Hill's request for 

relief because Hill had not applied to this Court for permission to file a 

second habeas petition.”), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1203, 117 S.Ct. 1571, 137 

L.Ed.2d 714 (1997). Accordingly, this cause is due to be dismissed.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth herein above, it is RECOMMENDED that 

Marshall’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) be DISMISSED

without prejudice, for want of jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

2244(b)(3)(A).

Notice of Right to File Objections

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all parties 

in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to this 

recommendation or anything in it must, within fourteen (14) days of the date 

of service of this document, file specific written objections with the Clerk of 

this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P 72(b); S.D. Ala. GenLR 

72(c). The parties should note that under Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, “[a] 

party failing to object to a magistrate judge's findings or recommendations 

contained in a report and recommendation in accordance with the provisions 

of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge on appeal the district 

court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions if the party 

Case 1:15-cv-00589-WS-N Document 19 Filed 10/25/16 Page 6 of 7
7

was informed of the time period for objecting and the consequences on appeal 

for failing to object. In the absence of a proper objection, however, the court 

may review on appeal for plain error if necessary in the interests of justice.” 

11th Cir. R. 3-1. In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific 

finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the 

objection, and specify the place in the Magistrate Judge’s report and 

recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An objection 

that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the 

Magistrate Judge is not specific.

DONE and ORDERED this the 25th day of October, 2016.

/s/ Katherine P. Nelson

KATHERINE P. NELSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00589-WS-N Document 19 Filed 10/25/16 Page 7 of 7