Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Hawkins v. Jones

United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Tallahassee Division

May 8, 2018

JULIE L. JONES, Respondent.



         This cause is before the court on Petitioner's “Motion for Re-Enstatement [sic] of Our Case-Stipulated” and “Motion Re-Enstate Courtesy [sic]” (ECF Nos. 42, 43), which the court construes as motions for relief from judgment, under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

         The case was referred to the undersigned for the issuance of any recommendations to the district court regarding applications for post-trial relief. See N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2(B); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); Campbell v. Sec'y for Dep't of Corr., 370 Fed.Appx. 5, 8 (11th Cir. 2010) (unpublished but recognized as persuasive authority) (absent consent of the parties, magistrate judge exceeded authority in issuing final order on petitioner's Rule 60 motion and was authorized only to make report and recommendation to district court). After careful consideration of the issues raised by Petitioner, it is the opinion of the undersigned that Petitioner's Rule 60 motion should be denied.


         In 2009, the Circuit Court in and for Gadsden County, Florida, convicted Petitioner of one count of sexual battery with penetration by a correctional officer and one count of introduction of contraband into a state correctional institution (see ECF No. 23, Ex. A at 65-66). The state court sentenced Petitioner to ten years in prison followed by ten years of sex offender probation on the sexual battery count, and time served on the introduction of contraband count (see Id. at 68-74). The Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. See Hawkins v. State, 68 So.3d 237 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (Table).

         Petitioner commenced this federal habeas action on October 16, 2016 (ECF No. 1). He raised the following four grounds for relief:

Ground One: “Illegal Search & Seizure.”
Ground Two: “Counsel was Ineffective Assistant [sic] of Counsel During the Process and the Proceedings Held.”
Ground Three: ““The A.V. [alleged victim] Filed a False Report.”
Ground Four: “Magistrate T. Bateman Issued a Faulty Arrest Warrant.”

(ECF No. 6 at 5-10). On December 11, 2017, the undersigned issued a Report and Recommendation determining that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider Petitioner's challenge to his conviction for introduction of contraband (see ECF No. 32 at 11-13). With respect to the sexual battery conviction, the undersigned determined that the § 2254 petition was untimely (see Id. at 2-11). The undersigned additionally concluded that Petitioner's Ground One was procedurally barred, Ground Two was without merit, Ground Three was procedurally barred and without merit, and Ground Four was without merit (see Id. at 11-35). For these reasons, the undersigned recommended that the amended habeas petition be dismissed. In an order rendered January 18, 2018, the district judge adopted the Report and Recommendation and incorporated it by reference into the order (ECF No. 35).

         Petitioner filed the instant motions for relief from judgment on April 25 and 27, 2018 (ECF Nos. 42, 43). He is no longer in prison, and is serving his probationary term (see ECF No. 41; ECF No. 43 at 2). In Petitioner's first motion, he argues that the “process and proceedings” which led to dismissal of his habeas petition were “invalid” and violated his federal rights to procedural due process and equal protection, because the copy of the Report and Recommendation mailed to him by the clerk's office was printed on both sides of the paper (i.e., double-sided) (see ECF No. 42 at 1). Petitioner also requests “post trial release, ” pursuant to Rule 3.691 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure (see ECF No. 42 at 2-3). And Petitioner requests that the court “extend this courtesy” to his son, Geno Lewis Harkins, Jr. (id. at 3). Petitioner alleges his son was arrested in 2013, pursuant to an arrest warrant which allegedly was not supported by probable cause (id.). Petitioner requests that this court dismiss the charges against his son and grant him “post trial release” (id.).

         In Petitioner' second motion, he reiterates his request for “an extension of courtesy” to not only his son, but to all of his family members (see ECF No. 43 at 1). Petitioner also challenges the state trial proceedings on due process and equal protection grounds, arguing that the court reporter failed to “certify” the trial transcript (id. at 2). Petitioner requests that the court release him from all conditions of his probation, remove all restraints associated with his status as a sexual offender, and direct Respondent to ...

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.