Gaddis v. Judiciary Committee Leaders, No. 1:2021cv00590 - Document 3 (N.D. Ala. 2021)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION - After careful consideration of the record in this case and the magistrate judge's report, the court ADOPTS the report and ACCEPTS her recommendations. In accordance with the recommendations, the court DISMISSES Mr. Gaddis&# 039; § 2254 petition WITHOUT PREJUDICE as unexhausted. Furthermore, because the petition does not present issues that are debatable among jurists of reason, the court DENIES a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge Annemarie Carney Axon on 6/8/2021. (KEK)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Gaddis v. Judiciary Committee Leaders Doc. 3 FILED 2021 Jun-08 PM 01:38 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION THOMAS GADDIS, Petitioner, v. JUDICIARY TRIBUNALS COMMITTEE LEADERS, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 1:21-cv-00590-ACA-SGC MEMORANDUM OPINION On May 5, 2021, the magistrate judge entered a report recommending that the court dismiss Petitioner Thomas Gaddis’ 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus because he had not exhausted any state court remedies and in any event, most of his claims were not cognizable in habeas, but were instead civil rights claims that he should have brought under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 or 1985. (Doc. 2). Although the magistrate judge advised Mr. Gaddis of his right to file specific written objections to the report and recommendation by May 19, 2021 (id. at 8), Mr. Gaddis has not submitted objections, or any other response, within the prescribed time. After careful consideration of the record in this case and the magistrate judge’s report, the court ADOPTS the report and ACCEPTS her recommendations. In accordance with the recommendations, the court DISMISSES Mr. Gaddis’ § 2254 petition WITHOUT PREJUDICE as unexhausted. Furthermore, because the Dockets.Justia.com petition does not present issues that are debatable among jurists of reason, the court DENIES a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000); Rule 11(a), Rules Governing § 2254 Proceedings. The court will enter a separate order consistent with this opinion. DONE and ORDERED this June 8, 2021. _________________________________ ANNEMARIE CARNEY AXON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2
]]>
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.
