Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Campbell v. Jones

United States District Court, S.D. Florida

January 2, 2018

JAMES BERNARD CAMPBELL, Petitioner,
v.
JULIE JONES, Respondent.

          James Bernard Campbell PRO SE

          REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         I. Introduction

         James 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 County.

         This 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 relief.[1]

         II. Procedural History

         Petitioner 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, [2] 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, DE#258).

         On 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).

         III. Discussion

         On 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 unavailable; or
(B)(I) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence; and
(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 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.