Jones v. Carr et al, No. 1:2018cv01724 - Document 6 (N.D. Ga. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER and OPINION OVERRULING the Petitioner's 5 Objections and ADOPTING the Magistrate Judge's 3 Final Report and Recommendation. This action is hereby TRANSFERRED to the USDC for the Middle District of Georgia, Valdosta Division, for further proceedings. Signed by Judge Orinda D. Evans on 5/21/2018. (sap)

Download PDF

Jones v. Carr et al Doc. 6 MAY 2 f 2018 I N THE U N I T E D STATES DISTRICT CO FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORCrA A T L A N T A DIVISION CRAIG L . JONES, Petitioner, PRISONER HABEAS CORPUS 28 U.S.C. § 2254 V. CHRISTOPHER CARR et al., Respondents. CIVIL ACTION NO. l:18-CV-1724-ODE ORDER Petitioner is a state prisoner who, pro se, filed a "NOTICE & D E M A N D FOR ORDERTO V A C A T E V O I D JUDGMENT." (Doc. I at I . ) The judgment Petitioner seeks to vacate is his judgment of conviction entered in the Superior Court of Thomas County, Georgia. (Id.) Thomas County is within the jurisdiction o f the U.S. District Court for the Middle District o f Georgia. Before filing this action, Petitioner filed similar actions in that court claiming that his judgment o f conviction is void. See Pet., Jones v. McLaughlin, No. 7:17-cv-149-HL-TQL ( M . D . Ga. Sept. 5, 2017); Pet., Jones v. Georgia, No. 7:17-cv-l 16-HL-TQL (M.D. Ga. June 26, 2017). Apparently because he has not obtained relief in the Middle District, Petitioner filed this action in this Court against two State officials located here. (See Doc. I.) Petitioner does not expressly seek relief under the federal habeas corpus laws, but AO 72A (Rev. 8/82) Dockets.Justia.com instead relies on Federal Rule o f Civil Procedure 60 and other laws regarding void judgments. {Id.) Magistrate Judge Walker found that Petitioner cannot obtain relief in federal court from his judgment o f conviction except under the federal habeas corpus laws. (Doc. 3.) Judge Walker (and the Clerk) thus construed Petitioner's filing as a petition for a writ o f habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which provides relief from a judgment o f conviction entered in state court in violation o f the petitioner's rights under federal law. {Id.) But because Petitioner's judgment of conviction was entered within the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District o f Georgia, Judge Walker issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") that the petition be transferred to that court. {Id.) Petitioner filed objections to the R&R. (Doc. 5.) A district judge must conduct a careful and complete review o f a magistrate judge's R & R . Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982). The district judge must "make a de novo determination of those portions of the [R&R] to which objection is made," 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), while those portions ofthe R & R for which there is no objection are reviewed only for clear error, Macort v. Prem, 208 F. A p p ' x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006); see Fed. R Civ. P. 72(b). AO 72A (Rev.8/82) Inc., Petitioner objects to construing his filing as a habeas petition, arguing that it "is NOT to be perceived as a writ o f habeas corpus." (Doc. 5 at 2.) He insists that the filing "is what I have said it is, a demand to vacate a void judgment, and w i l l be treated under the Rule for Relief from Judgment, as in 'the judgment is void.'" {Id.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 provides relief only from judgments rendered by federal courts, not judgments rendered by state courts. Petitioner is challenging, as void, a judgment rendered by a state court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. The R & R correctly concluded that Petitioner can obtain the relief he seeks in federal courtonlyunder28U.S.C. §2254. SeeMcCormickv. CityofFlorala,^o. 16-17491- A, 2017 W L 6521787, at *2-3 ( U t h Cir. Oct. 18, 2017) (holding that district court properly construed state prisoner's Rule 60 motion to vacate his judgment o f conviction as void as a § 2254 petition). A n d the § 2254 action must proceed in the Middle District because Thomas County is located there. Accordingly, Petitioner's objections to the R & R [5] are O V E R R U L E D . The Court A D O P T S the R & R [3] as the opinion o f the Court. This action is T R A N S F E R R E D to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District o f Georgia, Valdosta Division, for further proceedings. AO 72A (Rev.8/82) s o O R D E R E D this ^ | day of May, 2018. ORINDA D. EVANS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 4 AO 72A (Rev.8/82)

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.