Carey v. Deloach

Full title: ANTHONY L. CAREY, #152763, Petitioner, v. JAMES DELOACH, et al.…

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

Date published: Apr 14, 2008

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06cv510-WHA (WO) (M.D. Ala. Apr. 14, 2008)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06cv510-WHA (WO).

April 14, 2008

ORDER

W. ALBRITTON III, Senior District Judge

This case is before the court on the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #22), and the Objection of the Petitioner (Doc. #25).

In his Objection, Carey maintains that the Respondents failed to:

(1) inform the court of whether this was the first habeas petition filed by Petitioner;

(2) set forth a procedural history of the case from which the court could determine the applicability of the statute of limitation; and

(3) provide the court with copies of the state court records relevant to his habeas petition.

Respondents filed their Answer on June 29, 2006. Petitioner filed his reply on July 19, 2006. His reply did not contain any complaints about the adequacy of Respondents' Answer. It was not until November 29, 2007, when Petitioner filed a pleading styled "Response to Respondents' Answer," that he first complained about the alleged deficiencies in Respondents' Answer.

Even assuming that Respondents' Answer was inadequate in the ways alleged by Petitioner, he completely fails to show how he was prejudiced in this regard. The outcome of his case did not depend in any way on the question of whether his petition was successive. Therefore, Respondents' failure to address this question in its Answer did not prejudice Petitioner. Nor was there any question of whether the petition was time-barred; therefore, the procedural history set forth by Respondents was sufficient and was not crucial to addressing any statute of limitation issue. Finally, while Respondents could have provided the court with a considerably better record from the state court proceedings, Petitioner included relevant portions of the state court record as Exhibits to his July 19, 2006 reply. Therefore, Petitioner already had in his possession any relevant portions of the state record, and those documents were also before this court because they were attached to Petitioner's reply. Petitioner does not establish any prejudice.

After a de novo review of this matter, the court finds the Petitioner's Objection to be without merit, and it is hereby overruled. The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED, and it is hereby

ORDERED that this petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED, and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice.