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.

Cogman v. Crow

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

October 9, 2018

MARSHALL COGMAN, # 137034, Petitioner,
v.
JOHN CROW, 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 Marshall Cogman on September 28, 2018. Doc. # 1. Cogman challenges his 1981 conviction and life sentence entered against him by the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Alabama for the offense of attempted rape in the first degree. He alleges that (1) the trial lacked jurisdiction to convict and sentence him for attempted rape in the first degree conviction as a lesser-included offense of rape in the first degree as charged in the indictment; (2) the trial court constructively amended the indictment; and (3) he was tried, convicted, and sentenced while mentally incompetent. For the reasons that follow, it is the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that Cogman's § 2254 petition be dismissed as a successive petition filed without the required appellate court authorization.

         DISCUSSION

         This is Cogman's second 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his 1981 conviction for attempted rape in the first degree. Cogman filed his first § 2254 petition with this court in August 2004. See Cogman v. Thomas, et al., Civil Action No. 2:04cv1245-MEF (M.D. Ala. 2005), Doc. # 1. In that habeas action, this court denied Cogman relief, finding his habeas application to be time-barred under the federal limitation period in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) and dismissing the case with prejudice. See id., Docs. # 14 through 16.

         Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), “[b]efore a second or successive application permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). “A motion in the court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider a second or successive application shall be determined by a three-judge panel of the court of appeals” and may be granted “only if [the assigned panel of judges] determines that the application makes a prima facie showing that the application satisfies the requirements of [28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) or (b)(2)].”[1] 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(B) & (C).

         Cogman's instant § 2254 petition is a successive petition subject to the limitations of § 2244(b).[2] Cogman furnishes no certification from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals authorizing this court to proceed on his successive petition for habeas corpus relief. “Because this undertaking [is a successive] habeas corpus petition and because [Cogman] had no permission from [the Eleventh Circuit] to file a [successive] habeas petition, . . . the district court lack[s] jurisdiction to grant the requested relief.” Gilreath v. State Board of Pardons and Paroles, 273 F.3d 932, 933 (11th Cir. 2001). See Farris v. United States, 333 F.3d 1211, 1216 (11th Cir. 2003) (providing that, without an order from the court of appeals authorizing the district court to consider a successive habeas petition, the district courts lack jurisdiction to consider the petition). Consequently, the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus should be denied and this case summarily dismissed.

         CONCLUSION

         Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that Cogman's petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be denied and that this action be DISMISSED under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), as Cogman has failed to obtain the requisite order from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals authorizing a federal district court to consider his successive habeas application.

         It is further

         ORDERED that on or before October 23, 2018, the petitioner may file objections to the Recommendation. The petitioner must specifically identify the factual findings and legal conclusions in the Recommendation to which objection is made. Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections will not be considered.

         Failure to file a written objections to the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District Court of factual and legal issues covered in the Recommendation and waives the right of a party to challenge on appeal the District Court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Resolution Trust Co. v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993).

---------

Notes:

[1] Section 2244(b)(1) provides:


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.