Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_15-cv-00647/USCOURTS-alsd-1_15-cv-00647-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Willie Bernard Collins
Plaintiff
Cynthia Stewart
Defendant

Document Text:

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WILLIE BERNARD COLLINS, :

 :

Petitioner, :

 :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 15-0647-WS-M

 :

CYNTHIA STEWART, :

:

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 Cynthia Stewart and against Petitioner Willie Bernard 

Collins on all claims.

Petitioner was convicted of murder in the Mobile County 

Circuit Court on June 23, 1981 for which he received a sentence 

of life in the state penitentiary (Doc. 4, p. 2). On April 23, 

Case 1:15-cv-00647-WS-M Document 19 Filed 08/15/16 Page 1 of 4
2

1982, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the 

conviction and entered the certificate of final judgment (Doc. 

17, Exhibit G; Doc. 11, p. 3).

On July 2, 1982, Collins filed a habeas petition in this 

Court that was denied on August 4, 1982 in a report and 

recommendation written by U.S. Magistrate Judge Patrick H. Sims 

(Doc. 17, Exhibit K). On September 17, 1982, U.S. District 

Court Judge W. Brevard Hand adopted the report as the opinion of 

the Court and dismissed the action (Doc. 17, Exhibit L). 

Petitioner filed the current habeas petition on November 9, 

2015, raising the single claim that he was improperly sentenced

(Doc. 1). Respondent Answered the Complaint, asserting that 

this was a successive petition and that Collins had failed to 

seek approval from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to file 

it (Doc. 17; see also Doc. 11).1

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). Specifically, the statute 

states 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 of appeals for an 

 1

Respondent initially asserted a statute-of-limitations 

defense, but once prompted to file additional documents, 

Respondent asserted that this was a successive petition (Docs. 

11, 17).

Case 1:15-cv-00647-WS-M Document 19 Filed 08/15/16 Page 2 of 4
3

order authorizing the district court to consider the 

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

The Court notes that Petitioner has provided no evidence 

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

Collins has filed a reply to Respondent’s Supplemental Response, 

in which this defense is raised, but he did not address the 

issue (Doc. 18). 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 

denied as this Court does not have jurisdiction to review it, 

that this action be dismissed, and that judgment be entered in 

favor of Respondent Cynthia Stewart and against Petitioner 

Willie Bernard Collins on all claims.

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. L.R. 7(c). The parties 

should note that under Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, “[a] party 

Case 1:15-cv-00647-WS-M Document 19 Filed 08/15/16 Page 3 of 4
4

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 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 this 15th day of August, 2016.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00647-WS-M Document 19 Filed 08/15/16 Page 4 of 4