Brunson v. State of Alabama, No. 5:2021cv01191 - Document 21 (N.D. Ala. 2022)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Abdul K Kallon on 04/12/2022. (AKD)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Brunson v. State of Alabama Doc. 21 FILED 2022 Apr-12 PM 03:37 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHEASTERN DIVISION ALBERT BRUNSON, Petitioner, v. STATE OF ALABAMA, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action Number 5:21-cv-1191-AKK-GMB MEMORANDUM OPINION The magistrate judge entered a report recommending that Albert Brunson’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed without prejudice as successive pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Doc. 14. Brunson subsequently filed a motion for an extension of time to file objections to the report and recommendation, doc. 15, which the magistrate judge granted, doc. 18. Brunson thereafter filed another motion for an extension. Doc. 20. In both motions, Brunson describes his limited access to the law library in the prison in which he is incarcerated. Docs. 15 at 1; 20 at 1. As noted in the report, however, Brunson has not obtained Eleventh Circuit authorization to file a successive petition, so this court has no jurisdiction to consider his claims. Doc. 14 at 2–4. As a result, no objections that Brunson could file would change that he did not obtain authorization from the Circuit before filing a successive petition. Dockets.Justia.com After careful consideration of the record in this case, the magistrate judge’s report, and Brunson’s motions, the court DENIES Brunson’s motion for an extension, doc. 20, ADOPTS the report, and ACCEPTS the recommendation. Accordingly, the court will dismiss Brunson’s amended petition, doc. 8, without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction because he has not received authorization from the Circuit to file a successive habeas petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). This 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 do so, 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). The court finds Brunson’s claims do not satisfy either standard. The court will enter a final judgment. DONE the 12th day of April, 2022. _________________________________ ABDUL K. KALLON 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.
