Lathers v. Williams et al, No. 1:2021cv00207 - Document 9 (N.D. Ala. 2021)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION - The Court dismisses Mr. Lathers' petition for a writ of habeas corpus without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction because Mr. Lathers has not received authorization from the Eleventh Circuit to file a successive habeas petition. Mr. Lathers' petition does not satisfy either standard, so the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 5/18/2021. (KEK)

Download PDF
Lathers v. Williams et al Doc. 9 FILED 2021 May-19 AM 08:45 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION MICHAEL WAYNE LATHERS, Petitioner, v. GARY WILLIAMS, et al., Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 1:21-cv-00207-MHHSGC MEMORANDUM OPINION The magistrate judge entered a report on April 22, 2021, recommending the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), dismiss Mr. Lathers’ petition for a writ of habeas corpus as successive. (Doc. 8). The magistrate judge also recommended the Court deny Mr. Lathers’ motion to stay. (Doc. 8). Although the magistrate judge advised Mr. Lathers of his right to file objections to the report and recommendation within 14 days, the Court has not received objections. Having reviewed and considered the materials in the court file, including the report and recommendation, the Court adopts the magistrate judge’s report and accepts her recommendation. The Court dismisses Mr. Lathers’ petition for a writ of habeas corpus without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction because Mr. Lathers has not received authorization from the Eleventh Circuit to file a successive habeas petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). For the same reason, the Court denies Mr. Lathers’ motion to stay. (Doc. 7). If the Eleventh Circuit gives Mr. Lathers Dockets.Justia.com permission to pursue a second habeas petition, Mr. Lathers may file a timely petition then. A district court may issue a certificate of appealability “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make such a showing, a “petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000), or that “the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (internal quotations omitted). Mr. Lathers’ petition does not satisfy either standard, so the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability. The Court will enter a separate final order. DONE and ORDERED this May 18, 2021. _________________________________ MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.