Filed: Jan. 08, 2015
Latest Update: Jan. 08, 2015
Summary: ORDER LACEY A. COLLIER, Senior District Judge. This cause comes on for consideration upon the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation dated November 13, 2014. The parties have been furnished a copy of the report and recommendation and afforded an opportunity to file objections. On December 22, 2014, Petitioner filed Objections to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 20). In those Objections he stated that, due to the limitations of the legal materials at the Florida Civil Commitment Cent
Summary: ORDER LACEY A. COLLIER, Senior District Judge. This cause comes on for consideration upon the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation dated November 13, 2014. The parties have been furnished a copy of the report and recommendation and afforded an opportunity to file objections. On December 22, 2014, Petitioner filed Objections to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 20). In those Objections he stated that, due to the limitations of the legal materials at the Florida Civil Commitment Cente..
More
ORDER
LACEY A. COLLIER, Senior District Judge.
This cause comes on for consideration upon the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation dated November 13, 2014. The parties have been furnished a copy of the report and recommendation and afforded an opportunity to file objections.
On December 22, 2014, Petitioner filed Objections to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 20). In those Objections he stated that, due to the limitations of the legal materials at the Florida Civil Commitment Center where he is housed, he was unable to gain access to the latest court decisions. In particular, Petitioner stated that he did not have the benefit of Young v. FCC Coleman, Medium Warden, ___ Fed. Appx. ___, 2014 WL 4697583 (11th Cir. Sept. 23, 2014), which the Magistrate Judge cited to in the Report and Recommendation. Also on December 22, 2014, Petitioner filled a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 22) requesting he be provided current materials so that he could review the Young case.
The Court will direct that a copy of the Young case be provided Petitioner. Young does not help Petitioner's present cause, however, because it is beyond question that a successive petition — which Petitioner's petition clearly is — requires authorization from the circuit court of appeals in order to proceed in the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Absent such authorization, the district court must dismiss the petition. See Jackson v. Crosby, 437 F.3d 1290, 1293 (11th Cir. 2006) (citing Gonzalez v. Secretary for Dept. of Corrections, 366 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2004).
Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), I have made a de novo determination of Petitioner's Objections,1 and, having considered them alongside the Report and Recommendation, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:
1. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.
2. Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 10) is GRANTED and the § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) DISMISSED.
3. Respondent's Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 10) is DENIED.
4. Petitioner's Motion to Strike Response Filed by the Assistant Attorney General (Doc. 11) is DENIED.
5. Petitioner's Motion to Compel Respondent to Provide Copy of Trial Transcript of the Harassing Telephone Call Proceeding (Doc. 12) is DENIED.
6. Petitioner's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 22) is DENIED as moot.
7. Petitioner's Motions to File Amended Habeas Petition (Docs. 23, 26) are DENIED.
8. A Certificate of Appealability is DENIED, and leave to appeal in forma pauperis is also DENIED.
ORDERED.
