United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Statesboro Division
ORDER AND MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
STAN BAKER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Carlton J. Walker (“Walker”), who is currently
incarcerated at Hays State Prison in Trion, Georgia, filed a
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254. (Doc. 1.) Walker also filed a Motion for Leave
to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. (Doc. 7.) For the
reasons which follow, the Court DENIES
Walker's Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis.
For these same reasons, I RECOMMEND that the
Court DISMISS Walker's Petition,
DIRECT the Clerk of Court to enter the
appropriate judgment of dismissal and to
CLOSE this case, and DENY
Walker leave to appeal in forma pauperis and a
Certificate of Appealability.
filed this Section 2254 Petition on October 26, 2017, in the
Middle District of Georgia, and that court transferred
Walker's Petition to this District on October 31, 2017.
(Docs. 1, 3.) In his Petition, Walker challenges his June 20,
2012, conviction in the Superior Court of Emanuel County,
Georgia. (Doc. 1, p. 1.) Walker asserts that the facts stated
in the transcripts of his case do not support his conviction
for armed robbery, that he was charged with three counts of
armed robbery when he should have only been charged with two
counts, and that he was improperly labeled a recidivist.
(Id. at pp. 5-6.)
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.
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 Walker's
Petition implicates doctrines of law which require the
dismissal of his Petition.
Dismissal for Untimeliness
determine whether Walker timely filed his petition, the Court
must look to the applicable statute of limitations periods. A
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 runs 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