Opinion
Case No. 2:18-cv-360-AKK-GMB
05-19-2021
PAUDRICIQUEZ MARTEZ FULLER, Petitioner, v. WARDEN LEON BOLLING, Respondent.
ORDER
On January 21, 2021, the Magistrate Judge entered a report recommending the dismissal with prejudice of Paudriciquez Martez Fuller's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Doc. 13. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties of their right to file specific written objections within 14 days. Doc. 13. No objections were received by the court within the prescribed time. On March 25, 2021, the court accepted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and dismissed the petition with prejudice. Docs. 15 & 16.
On April 8, 2021, the court received Fuller's objections (Doc. 17), along with his motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 18), appointment of counsel (Doc. 19), and an evidentiary hearing (Doc. 20). Attached to Fuller's objections is a letter from Darrel Fox, a warden at St. Clair Correctional Facility. Doc. 17 at 16. According to Fox, prison records indicate the prison received legal mail from this court addressed to Fuller on January 26, 2021, but Fuller did not receive the mail until the end of February. Doc. 17 at 16.
Although the court did not receive Fuller's objections and other motions until April 8, 2021, three of his motions are dated March 1 and March 7, 2021, while a fourth is dated April 1, 2021. Doc. 17 at 13; Doc. 18 at 4; Doc. 19 at 1; Doc. 20 at 4. --------
The court construes Fuller's objections to the report and recommendation as a motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 59(e) "enables a party to request that a district court reconsider a just-issued judgment." Banister v. Davis, — U.S. —, 140 S. Ct. 1698, 1703 (2020). A district court may only grant a motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) on the grounds of "newly-discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact." Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
In his motion to alter or amend the judgment, Fuller contends that he was not provided an evidentiary hearing in state court to resolve certain factual disputes. Doc. 17 at 12; Doc. 20 at 3. However, Fuller did not raise this ground in his federal habeas petition. Doc. 1. Rather, Fuller sought federal habeas review on the grounds that the trial court erred (1) when it instructed the jury that Fuller had a duty to retreat and that Alabama's "stand-your-ground" law did not apply; and (2) when it failed to instruct the jury on lesser included offenses, including provocation manslaughter. Doc. 1 at 5, 7. This court will not entertain Fuller's new ground for relief at this late stage of the proceedings. See Banister, 140 S. Ct. at 1703 (noting that courts "will not address new arguments or evidence [on a Rule 59(e) motion] that the moving party could have raised before the decision issued").
With respect to the grounds alleged in the petition, Fuller's motion to alter or amend the judgment does not address the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that he failed to demonstrate that the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals' decision affirming his conviction and sentence was unreasonable in light of the evidence presented in the underlying state-court proceedings. Fuller also has not established that the appellate court's decision violated the United States Constitution or clearly established Federal law.
The court dismissed this action after careful consideration of the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation and the entire record. The present motion provides no additional facts or arguments sufficient to persuade the court to alter or amend its judgment. Accordingly, Fuller's motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (Doc. 17) is DENIED. Additionally, Fuller's motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 18), appointment of counsel (Doc. 19), and an evidentiary hearing (Doc. 20) are MOOT.
This court may issue a certificate of appealability "only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make such a showing, a "petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000), or that "the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further." Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (internal quotations omitted). The court finds Fuller's claims do not satisfy either standard.
DONE the 19th day of May, 2021.
/s/_________
ABDUL K. KALLON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE