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.

Redford v. Sellers

United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division

March 30, 2017

MIKE REDFORD, Petitioner,
v.
SELLERS, Warden, SAM OLENS, Respondents.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          WILLIAM S. DLTFEY, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Janet F. King's Final Report and Recommendation [39] (“R&R”), recommending that Respondent Sellers' Motion to Dismiss Petition for Lack of Exhaustion [28] (“Motion to Dismiss”) be granted, that Petitioner Mike Redford's (“Petitioner”) Motion to Deny Respondent's Motion to Dismiss [34] be denied, that Petitioner's Motion to Strike [36] be denied, that this action be dismissed without prejudice, and that a certificate of appealability be denied. Also before the Court are Petitioner's Motion for Disqualification and/or Recusal of Judge William Duffey Jr. [22] (“Motion to Recuse”), Motion for Subpoenas for Production of Evidence/Motion for Order for Daily Law Library [48], Petition for the Writ of Mandamus against Judge William Duffey Jr. [49], and Motion for Evidentiary Hearing [50] ([48]-[50] collectively, “Post-R&R Motions”). Also before the Court are Petitioner's “Motion for Objection to Magistrate Order” [20], “Objection to Magistrate Ruling/Motion for Reconsideration of Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing” [31], “Motion for Certificate of Immediate Review” [33], “Objection to Magistrate Order/Motion for Reconsideration on Motion for Disqualification and/or Recusal of Magistrate Janet King” [35], and “Objection to Order by Magistrate Judge on Petitioner's Motion for a Jury Trial” [46] (collectively, “Objections”), all of which challenge orders-but not the R&R-issued by the Magistrate Judge.[1]

         I. BACKGROUND[2]

         On August 19, 2016, a jury, in the Superior Court of Douglas County, convicted Petitioner of two counts of aggravated stalking. ([29.2]). On August 22, 2016, the state court sentenced Petitioner to twenty years in prison. ([29.3]). Petitioner filed three notices of appeal.

         In May 2016, Petitioner filed his “Application for Heabas [sic] Corpus under 28 U.S.C.A. 2254” [1] (“Initial Petition”). In June 2016, Petitioner filed his “Motion to Substitute 28 U.S.C. 2254 with 2241” [5], seeking to bring his Initial Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On July 21, 2016, the Magistrate Judge ordered Petitioner to amend his Initial Petition because it failed to comply with the federal habeas corpus rules. ([6]). The Magistrate Judge directed the Clerk of Court to send Petitioner the habeas petition forms, and instructed Petitioner that the § 2254 form should be used if he already had been convicted, and that the § 2241 form should be used if he still was in pre-trial confinement. ([6]).

         On July 27, 2016, Petitioner filed his Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by a Person in State Pretrial Detention [7] (“First Amended Petition”). On August 8, 2016, the Magistrate Court granted Petitioner's motion to bring his petition under § 2241 instead of § 2254. ([8]). The Magistrate Judge also ordered Petitioner to amend his First Amended Petition because it failed to comply with the Magistrate Judge's prior instructions. ([8]). The Magistrate Judge advised Petitioner that his amended petition, when filed, would supersede his prior pleadings. ([8]).

         On October 4, 2016, Petitioner filed two Amended Petitions for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by a Person in State Pretrial Detention [12] (“Second Amended Petition”), [13] (“Third Amended Petition”). These are the operative petitions in this action. The Second Amended Petition asserts the following grounds for relief:

(1) President Obama and the United States have purposely discriminated against Petitioner to deprive him of his constitutional rights;
(2) State actors purposely discriminate against the Black Race;
(3) Federal or State actors purposely discriminated against Petitioner because of his race and to deprive him of his constitutional rights, have enacted law authorizing racist groups to falsely bring criminal charges against Black persons, and have “paid a lawyer an alternate jury to ask jurors to convict Petitioner”; and
(4) Federal and State actors purposely discriminated against Petitioner to deprive him of his constitutional rights because of his race, national origin, and education in that “Respondents acted in criminal enterprise stealthly [sic] to interfer [sic] with interstate commerce clause causing Petitioner great economic loss . . . .”

(Second Am. Pet. ¶ 11).[3]

         The Third Amended Petition asserts the following additional grounds for relief:

(5) Application of Georgia law to protective orders, stalking, and aggravated stalking (O.C.G.A. ยงยง 19-3-4, 16-5-90, 16-5-91) caused ...

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.