1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JEFFREY SCOTT HANCOCK, :

 :

Petitioner, :

 :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 14-0579-CB-M

 :

KENNETH JONES, :

 :

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 

dismissed as time-barred and that judgment be entered in favor 

of Respondent Kenneth Jones and against Petitioner Jeffrey Scott 

Hancock, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). It is further 

recommended that any certificate of appealability filed by 

Petitioner be denied as he is not entitled to appeal in forma 

pauperis.

Case 1:14-cv-00579-CB-M Document 14 Filed 06/15/15 Page 1 of 7
2

Petitioner was convicted of two counts of felony murder and 

one count of bringing stolen property into Alabama in the 

Baldwin County Circuit Court on March 16, 1997 for which he 

received two life sentences and a sentence of ten years, 

respectively, to be served consecutively in the state 

penitentiary (Doc. 6, p. 2; Doc. 11, pp. 2-3). On appeal, the 

Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction (Doc. 

11, Exhibit 1). An application for rehearing to the Criminal 

Appeals Court and a petition for certiorari were both denied; 

the certificate of final judgment was entered on December 30, 

1999 (see Doc. 11, p. 3; cf. Doc. 6, pp. 3-4).

Petitioner filed a Rule 32 petition on December 6, 2001 

(see Doc. 11, p. 3). Following the denial of the petition by 

the lower court, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed 

the decision (Doc. 11, Exhibit 2). A certificate of judgment 

was entered on April 5, 2006 (Doc. 11, Exhibit 3).

Hancock filed a second Rule 32 petition on January 26, 2011

that was summarily dismissed (see Doc. 11, p. 4; cf. Doc. 6, p. 

4). The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the lower 

court decision, finding that this was a successive petition and 

that it had been improperly filed (Doc. 11, Exhibit 8). An 

application for rehearing was denied (Doc. 11, Exhibit 9) as was 

Hancock’s petition for certiorari (Doc. 11, Exhibit 10). A 

Case 1:14-cv-00579-CB-M Document 14 Filed 06/15/15 Page 2 of 7
3

certificate of Judgment was entered on February 14, 2014 (Doc. 

11, Exhibit 11).

Petitioner filed a complaint with this Court on December 

11, 20141 raising the following single claim: One of the jurymembers at his trial was threatened, causing her to change her 

vote to guilty (Doc. 6). 

Respondent has answered the petition, arguing that it 

should be dismissed as it was not filed within the one-year 

statute of limitations period (Doc. 11, pp. 5-8). Respondent 

refers to provisions of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death 

Penalty Act of 1996 (hereinafter AEDPA) that amended, in 

pertinent part, 28 U.S.C. § 2244. The specific provision states 

as follows: 

 1

This action was initiated on December 11, 2014 when Petitioner 

filed a pleading indicating a desire to seek habeas corpus relief 

(Doc. 1). Petitioner was Ordered to file a petition on this Court’s 

form that ultimately became his complaint (see Docs. 3-6).

A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to 

an application for a writ of habeas corpus 

by a person in custody pursuant to the 

judgment of a State court. The limitation 

period shall run from the latest of the date 

on which the judgment became final by the 

conclusion of direct review or the 

expiration of the time for seeking such 

review.

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). 

Case 1:14-cv-00579-CB-M Document 14 Filed 06/15/15 Page 3 of 7
4

The AEDPA became effective on April 24, 1996. Goodman v. 

United States, 151 F.3d 1335, 1336 (11th Cir. 1998). The 

Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that the one-year 

limitations period would begin to run on that date, April 24, 

1996, for potential habeas petitioners whose convictions had 

already become final by way of direct review. Goodman, 151 F.3d 

at 1337; Wilcox v. Florida Dept. of Corrections, 158 F.3d 1209, 

1211 (11th Cir. 1998).

Petitioner’s conviction became final on December 30, 1999, 

the date the certificate of judgment was entered (see Doc. 11, 

p. 3; cf. Doc. 6, pp. 3-4).

Petitioner’s habeas corpus petition was not filed in this 

Court until December 11, 2014, nearly fourteen years after the 

limitations period had expired. Petitioner had filed a Rule 32 

petition in State court on December 6, 2001, nearly a year after 

the limitations period had expired. The Eleventh Circuit Court 

of Appeals has held that “[a] state court petition [] that is 

filed following the expiration of the limitations period cannot 

toll that period because there is no period remaining to be 

tolled.” Webster v. Moore, 199 F.3d 1256, 1259 (11th Cir. 2000). 

Petitioner’s Rule 32 petition was filed too late to toll the 

statute.

Case 1:14-cv-00579-CB-M Document 14 Filed 06/15/15 Page 4 of 7
5

Clearly, Petitioner’s habeas corpus petition was filed well 

beyond the one-year grace period and filed in violation of 28 

U.S.C. § 2244(d). The Court finds that Petitioner has provided 

no cause for ignoring the dictates of the Anti-Terrorism and 

Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996: this action is timebarred.

For the reasoning stated herein, it is recommended that 

this habeas petition be dismissed as time-barred and that 

judgment be entered in favor of Respondent Kenneth Jones and 

against Petitioner Jeffrey Scott Hancock pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

2244(d).

Furthermore, pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing 

§ 2254 Cases, the undersigned recommends that a certificate of 

appealability (hereinafter COA) be denied. 28 U.S.C. foll. § 

2254, Rule 11(a) (“The district court must issue or deny a 

certificate of appealability when it enters a final order 

adverse to the applicant”). The habeas corpus statute makes 

clear that an applicant is entitled to appeal a district court’s 

denial of his habeas corpus petition only where a circuit 

justice or judge issues a COA. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). A COA 

may issue only where “the applicant has made a substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 

2253(c)(2). Where a habeas petition is denied on procedural 

Case 1:14-cv-00579-CB-M Document 14 Filed 06/15/15 Page 5 of 7
6

grounds, “a COA should issue [only] when the prisoner shows . . 

. that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the 

petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional 

right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether 

the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack 

v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). As Hancock has not 

brought this action in a timely manner, a reasonable jurist 

could not conclude that this Court errs in dismissing the 

instant petition or that he should be allowed to proceed. 

Slack, 529 U.S. at 484 (“Where a plain procedural bar is present 

and the district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of the 

case, a reasonable jurist could not conclude either that the 

district court erred in dismissing the petition or that the 

petitioner should be allowed to proceed further”). 

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that Petitioner’s petition for writ of 

habeas corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, be denied and 

that this action be dismissed. It is further recommended that

any certificate of appealability filed by Petitioner be denied 

as he is not entitled to appeal in forma pauperis. Finally, it 

is recommended that judgment be entered in favor Respondent, 

Case 1:14-cv-00579-CB-M Document 14 Filed 06/15/15 Page 6 of 7
7

Kenneth Jones, and against Petitioner, Jeffrey Scott Hancock.

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.72.4. 

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 June, 2015.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00579-CB-M Document 14 Filed 06/15/15 Page 7 of 7