United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CHARLES S. COODY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Darryl
Swint, an Alabama prisoner acting pro se, filed this
action on January 9, 2017.[1] The case is now before the court on
Swint's amended § 2254 petition.
I.
BACKGROUND
A.
Swint's Initial Pleading
Swint's
initial pleading (Doc. # 1), [2] a handwritten document captioned
“Memorandum Brief of Amend, ”[3] comprised
piecemeal and disjointed recitations of various
constitutional amendments, legal principles, and state and
federal procedural rules. See Doc. # 1 at 1-5. As
best this court could tell, Swint seemed to challenge
convictions entered by the Circuit Court of Barbour County,
Alabama, although if this was Swint's intention, it was
not clear which particular convictions he was challenging or
what grounds for relief he was asserting.
B.
Court's Order of February 16, 2017
Because
Swint's initial pleading did not identify the state court
judgment he was challenging or his grounds for relief, and
because the pleading was largely incomprehensible, this court
entered an order on February 16, 2017, directing Swint to
submit an amended § 2254 petition using the pre-printed
form for use by pro se state prisoners seeking
habeas corpus relief under § 2254.[4] Doc. # 5. The
court directed Swint to complete the § 2254 form to
include identification of (1) the criminal judgment he was
challenging, including the court that entered it and when;
(2) all grounds for relief and the facts supporting each
ground; and (3) the relief requested. Id. at 2. The
court cautioned Swint that if he failed to comply with the
directives in its order, his action could be dismissed
without further notice. Id.
C.
Swint's Amended § 2254 Petition
In
apparent response to this court's February 16, 2017
order, Swint filed an amended pleading using the pre-printed
§ 2254 form.[5] Doc. # 6. Attached to that form was
another handwritten document containing an abbreviated
version of the piecemeal and disjointed recitations contained
in Swint's initial pleading.[6] See Id. at 1-3.
Hereinafter, this Recommendation refers to Swint's
amended pleading (the pre-printed § 2254 form plus
Swint's handwritten attachment) as Swint's amended
§ 2254 petition.
Swint's
amended § 2254 petition is, like his initial pleading,
mostly incomprehensible. In the spaces on the pre-printed
§ 2254 form for setting forth grounds for relief and
supporting facts, Swint identifies Ground One, and the
supporting facts, only as “Waiting to hear back from
them.” Id. at 8. No. other grounds for relief
are asserted on the § 2254 form, nor can any grounds for
relief be discerned from Swint's handwritten attachment.
On the first page of the § 2254 form, Swint identifies
the judgment of conviction he is attacking as “United
States 11th Circuit Court-Barbour Clayton County-Chambers
County-Northern District in Birmingham Alabama, ” with
a case number of “2:16-CV-00517-MHH-JEO.” Doc. #
6 at 4. That case number corresponds to a § 2254 action
Swint initiated on March 22, 2016, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, in which
Swint challenged his 2001 convictions in the Circuit Court of
Barbour County, in case numbers CC-2000-163 and CC-2000-164,
on charges of first-degree assault and promoting prison
contraband.[7] Although he does not specifically list
them as the convictions he now challenges, Swint appears to
reference these same Barbour County cases on the § 2254
form he filed with this court, indicating that he challenged
these convictions on direct appeal. See Doc. # 6 at
5. This court takes notice that on June 14, 2017, the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
denied Swint's § 2254 petition in Civil Action No.
2:16-CV-00517-MHH-JEO, finding that Swint failed to support
his claims for relief (to the extent they were
understandable) and that, in any event, his petition was
time-barred under AEDPA's one-year limitation period, 28
U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).[8]
For the
reasons that follow, this court recommends that Swint's
amended § 2254 petition be dismissed without an
evidentiary hearing.
II.
DISCUSSION
A.
Swint's Failure to Comply with Directives of Court's
Order
As
noted above, in its order of February 16, 2017, this court
cautioned Swint that if he failed to comply with the
directives in the order, his action could be dismissed
without further notice. See Doc. # 5 at 2. Among
those directives were that Swint file an amended § 2254
petition using a pre-printed § 2254 form properly
completed to include (1) identification of the criminal
judgment he is challenging, including the court that entered
it and when; (2) identification of all grounds for relief and
the facts supporting each ground; and (3) identification of
the relief requested. Id. Swint has failed to comply
with these directives. In his amended § 2254 petition,
he does not specifically identify a state court criminal
judgment he challenges, but instead refers to “United
States 11th Circuit Court- Barbour Clayton County-Chambers
County-Northern District in Birmingham Alabama, ” with
the case number 2:16-CV-00517-MHH-JEO. That is the case
number of a § 2254 action Swint initiated in March 2016
in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Alabama, in which Swint challenged Barbour County
convictions in case numbers CC-2000-163 and CC-2000-164.
Thus, Swint fails to identify the state court judgment he is
challenging. Even if this court assumes that it is his
Barbour County convictions that Swint challenges in this
court, ...