IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

CLARENCE WATERS, #132116, )

)

 Petitioner, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06-CV-650-MEF

)

KENNETH JONES, et al., )

)

 Respondents. )

ORDER

The respondents filed an answer, supplemental answer and supporting evidentiary

materials in accordance with the provisions of Rule 5, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases

in the United States District Courts, in which they contend that the present habeas corpus

petition is due to be denied because the claim raised therein, a challenge to the sufficiency

fo the indictment, provides no basis for relief. 

The record in this case establishes that the indictment issued against Waters for

stalking provided Waters adequate notice of the charge against him to permit adequate

preparation of a defense. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 314 (1979); Faretta v.

California, 422 U.S. 806, 818 (1975). The respondents therefore argue that the indictment

did not violate the Constitution as it was not so deficient that it deprived the trial court of

jurisdiction. Respondents’ Supplemental Answer at 3. It is likewise clear to this court that

Case 2:06-cv-00650-MEF-SRW Document 15 Filed 10/26/2006 Page 1 of 4
2

Waters is entitled to no relief on his habeas petition as the state courts properly adjudicated

the merits of his insufficient indictment claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Williams v.

Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 404-405, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 1518- 1523 (2000). Specifically, on appeal

from the trial court’s denial of Waters’ Rule 32 petition, the Alabama Court of Criminal

Appeals determined that the indictment tracked the language of the stalking statue which

prescribed with definiteness the elements of the offense. Respondents’ Exhibit 5 -

Memorandum Opinion of the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals at 2-3. 

In light of such determination, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) places new constraints on the

power of a federal district court to grant a state prisoner’s application for habeas corpus

relief. In sum, the statute directs that this court may grant a writ of habeas corpus only “if

the relevant state-court decision was either (1) ‘contrary to ... clearly established Federal

law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,’ or (2) ‘involved an

unreasonable application of ... clearly established Federal law, as determined by the

Supreme Court of the United States.’ (Emphases added.)” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. at

404-405, 120 S.Ct. at 1519. “Under § 2254(d)(1) and the Williams decision, [a federal

court] can grant relief only if the state court decision denying relief is ‘contrary to’ clearly

established federal law or is an ‘unreasonable application’ of federal law.” Brown v. Head,

272 F.3d 1308, 1313 (11th Cir. 2001). In the vast majority of cases, a federal district court

Case 2:06-cv-00650-MEF-SRW Document 15 Filed 10/26/2006 Page 2 of 4
3

will be faced with the contention that the state court unreasonably applied federal law. 

In determining whether the state court’s decision is an

unreasonable application of the law set out in [applicable]

Supreme Court decisions, we need not decide whether we

would have reached the same result as the state court if we had

been deciding the issue in the first instance. Instead, we decide

only whether the state court’s decision of the issue is

objectively unreasonably. See Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S.

362, 411, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 1522, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000)

(“Under §2254(d)(1)’s ‘unreasonable application’ clause, then,

a federal habeas court may not issue the writ simply because

that court concludes in its independent judgment that the

relevant state-court decision applied clearly established federal

law erroneously or incorrectly. Rather, that application must

also be unreasonable.”); Brown v. Head, 272 F.3d 1308, [1313]

(11th Cir. 2001)(“It is the objective reasonableness, not the

correctness per se, of the state court decision that we are to

decide.”).

Wright v. Secretary for the Dept. of Corrections, 278 F.3d 1245, 1256 (11th Cir. 2002).

Additionally, the statute makes it clear that a federal court cannot grant relief with respect

to claims adjudicated on the merits by the state courts “unless the adjudication of the claim

. . . resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in

light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). 

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that on or before November 15, 2006 the petitioner may file a response

to the answers filed by the respondents. Any pleadings, documents or evidence filed after

this date will not be considered by the court except in exceptional circumstances. The

Case 2:06-cv-00650-MEF-SRW Document 15 Filed 10/26/2006 Page 3 of 4
4

petitioner is advised that at any time after November 15, 2006 the court shall "determine

whether an evidentiary hearing is required. If it appears that an evidentiary hearing is not

required, the [court] shall make such disposition of the petition as justice shall require."

Rule 8(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. 

The petitioner is instructed that when responding to the respondents' answers he may

file sworn affidavits or other documents in support of his claims. Affidavits should set

forth specific facts which demonstrate that the petitioner is entitled to relief on those

grounds presented in the habeas corpus petition. If documents which have not previously

been filed with the court are referred to in the affidavits, sworn or certified copies of those

papers must be attached to the affidavits or served with them. When the petitioner attacks

the respondents' answers by use of affidavits or other documents, the court will, at the

proper time, consider whether to expand the record to include such materials. See Rule 7,

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. 

Done this 26th day of October, 2006.

 /s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00650-MEF-SRW Document 15 Filed 10/26/2006 Page 4 of 4