IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 _______________________________

JAMES HICKMAN HOLLOMAN *

Petitioner, * 

 v. * 1:06-CV-786-MHT

 

RICHARD ALLEN, et al., *

Respondents. *

 _______________________________

ORDER

Respondents filed a response on October 26, 2006 in accordance with the provisions

of Rule 5, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. (Doc.

No. 9.) They contend therein that the present habeas corpus petition is due to be denied

because the claims presented by Petitioner provide no basis for relief. See Williams v.

Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 404-405 (2000).

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) places new constraints on the power of a federal court to grant

a state prisoner’s application for habeas corpus relief with respect to those claims adjudicated

on the merits in state court. The statute allows this court to 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, 529 U.S. at 404-405. “Under §

2254(d)(1) and the Williams decision, [a federal court] can grant relief only if the state court

Case 1:06-cv-00786-MHT-CSC Document 10 Filed 10/30/2006 Page 1 of 3
-2-

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 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 statecourt 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 20, 2006 Petitioner may file a response to the

Case 1:06-cv-00786-MHT-CSC Document 10 Filed 10/30/2006 Page 2 of 3
-3-

answer filed by Respondents. Any pleadings, documents or evidence filed after this date will

not be considered by the court except in exceptional circumstances. Petitioner is advised that

at any time after November 20, 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. 

Petitioner is instructed that when responding to Respondents' answer he may file

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

specific facts which demonstrate that Petitioner is entitled to relief on the 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 Petitioner attacks Respondents' answer

by use of affidavits or other documents, the court will, at the appropriate 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 30th day of October 2006.

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00786-MHT-CSC Document 10 Filed 10/30/2006 Page 3 of 3