United States District Court, S.D. Florida
Bernard Campbell PRO SE
REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Bernard Campbell, a state prisoner confined at Santa Rosa
Correctional Institution in Milton, Florida, has filed an
amended pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254, attacking his conviction
and sentence entered in No. F86038693 in the Circuit Court of
the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida for Miami-Dade
Cause has been referred to the undersigned for consideration
and report pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) and Rules
8 and 10 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the
United States District Courts. The Court has for its
consideration the petition (DE#1). No. order to show cause
has been issued because, on the face of the petition, it is
evident the petitioner is entitled to no
was convicted of various murder, burglary, robbery, and
firearms charges, and sentenced to life in prison.
(See, docket in No. F86038693). Petitioner then came
to this Court, filing his first pro se petition for
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254, which
was assigned No. 98-Civ-02008-Graham. As the docket of that
case reflects, that petition was denied, and Petitioner has
not stopped litigating it ever since. Indeed, a search of
Petitioner's name in the Southern District, of which this
Court can take judicial notice,  reveals that Petitioner has
filed multiple successive § 2254 petitions, all of which
have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to
Petitioner's failure to obtain the requisite prior
authorization from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
Apparently savvy to this restriction, Petitioner has also
taken to filing a plethora of creatively-styled motions in
his original habeas proceeding, to the point that the
undersigned has recommended that an anti-filing injunction be
entered in that case. (See No. 98-Civ-02088-Graham,
November 26, 2017, pursuant to the “prison mailbox
rule, Petitioner filed the instant purported Amended
Independent Action (DE#1), in which he states that his
constitutional rights were violated in his underlying state
criminal case, and asks the court to relief from his criminal
judgment. And as the Supreme Court has stated, "when a
state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of
his physical imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a
determination that he is entitled to immediate release ...,
his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus."
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500, 93 S.Ct.
1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973). The instant “Amended
Independent Action” is thus in legal effect yet another
petition for writ of habeas corpus. See Castro v. United
States, 540 U.S. 375, 381-82 (2003)(the solicitous
approach to pro se submissions authorizes the district courts
to recast a pr ose litigant's claim so that its substance
corresponds to a proper legal theory).
April 24, 1996, the habeas corpus statutes were amended.
Included in the amendments is a change in 28 U.S.C.
§2244, which provides in pertinent part:
(b)(1) A claim presented in a second or successive habeas
corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a
prior application shall be dismissed.
(2) A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus
application under section 2254 that was not presented in a
prior application shall be dismissed unless --
(A) the application shows that the claim relies on a new rule
of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on
collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously
(B)(I) the factual predicate for the claim could not have
been discovered previously through the exercise of due
(ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in
light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to
establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for
constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would ...