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.

Cameron v. Stewart

United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division

January 2, 2018

JOHNNY L. CAMERON, # 154328, Petitioner,
v.
CYNTHIA STEWART, et al. Respondents.

          RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          CHARLES S. COODY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         This case is before the court on a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by state inmate Johnny L. Cameron (“Cameron”) on September 27, 2015. Doc. No. 1.[1] Cameron alleges that the Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles (“Board”) violated his constitutional rights in revoking his parole in November 2013.

         I. BACKGROUND

         In June 1989, Cameron was convicted of murder in the Circuit Court of Macon County, Alabama. He was sentenced to 60 years' imprisonment.

         Cameron was paroled in December 2009. In September 2013, while on parole, he was arrested on charges of unlawful distribution of controlled substances.[2] Parole revocation proceedings were initiated, and a parole court hearing was held in October 2013. Based on the evidence, the hearing officer found Cameron guilty of violating the conditions of his parole and recommended that his parole be revoked. Doc. No. 7-2 at 32-35. On November 5, 2013, after considering the evidence presented at parole court and the findings and recommendation of the hearing officer, the Board revoked Cameron's parole. Doc. No. 7-3 at 28.

         On March 9, 2015, Cameron filed a petition for common-law writ of certiorari in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Alabama, alleging due process, equal protection, and cruel and unusual punishment violations by the Board in revoking his parole.[3] See Doc. No. 7-2 at 3-27. On May 21, 2015, the circuit court denied Cameron's petition for common-law writ of certiorari. Doc. No. 7-4. Cameron appealed to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, and on August 26, 2015, that court dismissed his appeal as untimely and issued a certificate of judgment. Doc. Nos. 8 & 9. Cameron did not file a petition for writ of certiorari with the Alabama Supreme Court.

         Cameron filed the instant § 2254 petition on September 27, 2015, alleging-as he did in his state petition for common-law writ of certiorari-due process, equal protection, and cruel and unusual punishment violations by the Board in revoking his parole. Doc. No. 1 at 5-6. The Respondents argue that Cameron's § 2254 petition is time-barred by the one-year federal limitation in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Doc. No. 7. After reviewing the pleadings, evidentiary materials, and applicable law, the court concludes that no evidentiary hearing is required and that Cameron's petition should be denied as untimely.

         II. DISCUSSION

         AEDPA's One-Year Limitation Period

         The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) imposes the following time limit for bringing habeas petitions:

(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The limitation period shall run from the latest of-
(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review;
(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created 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 the right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made ...

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.