Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_12-cv-02912/USCOURTS-alnd-2_12-cv-02912-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Curtis Fields
Petitioner
Gary Hetzel
Respondent
Luther Strange
Respondent

Document Text:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CURTIS FIELDS,

Petitioner,

v.

GARY HETZEL, Warden III and

HONORABLE LUTHER STRANGE,

Attorney General of the State of

Alabama,

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 2:12-cv-02912-WMA-SGC

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On September 1, 2015, the magistrate judge entered a report recommending

Curtis Fields’s motion to amend his petition for a writ of habeas corpus brought

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be granted as to the first two additional allegations and

denied as to the third additional allegation. (Doc. 14). The magistrate judge further

recommended the first and third claims raised in Fields’s § 2254 petition be denied

and the second be dismissed. (Id.). Finally, in accordance with Rule 11 of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases, the magistrate judge recommended a certificate of

appealability be denied. (Id.).

On September 14, 2015, Fields submitted a letter stating the trial court judge

or his attorney “didn’t follow through about talking or seeing someone at Pardon and

FILED

 2015 Sep-23 PM 02:16

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:12-cv-02912-WMA-SGC Document 16 Filed 09/23/15 Page 1 of 3
Paroles before [he] was sentenced and sent to prison.” (Doc. 15). Fields further

states he has been calling and writing his attorney, who continues to tell him he has

not yet done enough time. (Id.). Finally, Fields states he decided not to contact his

attorney any more because his attorney and the court have abandoned him. (Id.). The

court construes Fields’s letter and its contents as objections to the report and

recommendation. These objections are restatements of claims Fields has already

presented. The magistrate judge considered and rejected those claims, and Fields’s

restatement of themdoes not alter the recommendation made by the magistrate judge. 

Accordingly, Fields’s objections are OVERRULED. 

After careful consideration of the record in this case and the magistrate judge’s

report, the court ADOPTS that report and ACCEPTS the magistrate judge’s

recommendations. Accordingly, Fields’s motion to amend his § 2254 petition is

GRANTED as to the first two additional allegations and DENIED as to the third

additional allegation. Furthermore, the first and third claimsraised in Fields’s § 2254

petition are DENIED, and the second is DISMISSED. Finally, for the reasons set

forth in the report and recommendation and pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 Proceedings, a certificate of appealability is DENIED.

A final judgment will be entered. 

Case 2:12-cv-02912-WMA-SGC Document 16 Filed 09/23/15 Page 2 of 3
DONE this 23rd day of September, 2015.

_____________________________

WILLIAM M. ACKER, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:12-cv-02912-WMA-SGC Document 16 Filed 09/23/15 Page 3 of 3