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.

Franklin v. Berry

United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Brunswick Division

July 10, 2018

IMARE' FRANKLIN, Petitioner,



         Petitioner Imare' Franklin (“Franklin”), who is currently incarcerated at Jimmy Autry State Prison in Pelham, Georgia, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1.) Franklin also filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. (Doc. 2.) For the reasons which follow, the Court DENIES Franklin's Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. For these same reasons, I RECOMMEND that the Court DISMISS Franklin's Petition, DIRECT the Clerk of Court to enter the appropriate judgment of dismissal and to CLOSE this case, and DENY Franklin leave to appeal in forma pauperis and a Certificate of Appealability.


         Franklin filed this Section 2254 Petition on August 28, 2017, in the Middle District of Georgia, and that court transferred Franklin's Petition to this District on September 18, 2017. (Docs. 1, 4.) In his Petition, Franklin challenges his September 13, 2008 conviction in the Superior Court of Glynn County, Georgia, for robbery by intimidation and aggravated assault. (Doc. 1, p. 1.) Franklin asserts his right to due process was violated, he was lied to about a treatment center in Dawsonville, Georgia, he received ineffective assistance of counsel, his probation officer lied under oath, and officers with the Brunswick Police Department violated his rights under Miranda. (Id. at pp. 5-6.)


         Franklin brings this action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules governing Section 2254 petitions:

The clerk must promptly forward the petition to a judge . . ., and the judge must promptly examine [the petition]. If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.

         While complaints in a civil case must contain only “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, ” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), petitions for habeas corpus must “specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner” and “state the facts supporting each ground, ” Rule 2 of Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In other words, habeas petitions must contain “‘fact pleading' as opposed to ‘notice pleading.'” Hittson v. GDCP Warden, 759 F.3d 1210, 1265 (11th Cir. 2014) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). “To properly fact plead, ‘a petitioner must state specific, particularized facts which entitle him or her to habeas corpus relief for each ground specified. These facts must consist of sufficient detail to enable the court to determine, from the face of the petition alone, whether the petition merits further habeas corpus review.'” Arrington v. Warden, GDCP, No. CV 117-022, 2017 WL 4079405, at *2 (S.D. Ga. Sept. 14, 2017) (quoting Adams v. Armontrout, 897 F.2d 332, 334 (8th Cir. 1990)). Therefore, a habeas petitioner cannot merely levy conclusory allegations but must support his claims with specific factual detail. Id. (citing James v. Borg, 24 F.3d 20, 26 (9th Cir. 1994)). The requisite review of Franklin's Petition implicates doctrines of law which require the dismissal of his Petition.

         I. Dismissal for Untimeliness

         To determine whether Franklin timely filed his petition, the Court must look to the applicable statute of limitations periods. A state prisoner must file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal court within one (1) year. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). This statute of limitations period shall run from the latest of four possible dates:

(A) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of time for seeking such review;
(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing by such State action;
(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if that right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or
(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the ...

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.