Jones v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.

Decision Date19 April 2021
Docket NumberCase No. 3:18-cv-390-MMH-JRK
PartiesGERRARD D. JONES, Petitioner, v. SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Respondents.
CourtUnited States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Florida
ORDER
I. Status

Petitioner Gerrard Jones, an inmate of the Florida penal system, initiated this action by mailbox rule on March 19, 2018, by filing a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Petition; Doc. 1). In the Petition, Jones does not attack his state court conviction or sentence but, instead, challenges a state court's denial of his petition for writ of mandamus concerning a prison disciplinary report (DR) and associated confinement in close management (CM). Respondents submitted an answer in opposition to the Petition. See Respondent's Response to Order to Show Cause (Response; Doc. 27) with exhibits (Resp. Ex.). Jones filed a brief in reply. See Petitioner's Reply to Respondents' Answer to Petitioner's Habeas Petition (Reply; Doc. 28). This case is ripe for review.

II. Procedural History

On July 13, 2015, prison staff wrote a DR against Jones for disobeying an order. Resp. Ex. A. Specifically, the DR alleged that Jones failed to abide by the library technician's order that he needed to file all six of his legal deadlines with an inmate law clerk. Id. The DR reflects that a similar situation had occurred more than once with Jones. Id. On July 21, 2015, following an investigation that afforded Jones the opportunity to present evidence, prison officials found Jones guilty of disobeying the order. Id. As a result, Jones was placed in disciplinary confinement for thirty days. Id.

That same day, Jones filed a Request for Administrative Remedy or Appeal. Resp. Ex. B. Jones sought to appeal the DR because it did not afford him due process because the mental health department was not consulted or given the opportunity to provide input. Id. He contended he was "a mentally impaired inmate," and, therefore, protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Id. As such, he claimed in his appeal that the ADA and prison regulations required prison officials to first consult with the prison's mental health department. Id. Jones also argued that the library technician never actually gave him an order, merely a reminder. Id. He raised additional due process concerns, including a claim that he had previously given his legal deadlines to prison staff that included his case numbers, but that prison staff never returned his document with the case numbers to him so he could notabide by the library technician's order that day. Id. The Warden denied the Request for Administrative Remedy or Appeal, finding that the regulations regarding mentally impaired inmates did not apply to Jones because he was housed in open population and did not meet the criteria for consideration under the mental health regulations. Id. The Warden also concluded that Jones has failed to present any evidence or information not already considered or that would change the outcome of the disciplinary hearing. Id. Jones appealed the Warden's denial of his Request for Administrative Remedy or Appeal to the Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections. Id. However, that appeal was also denied, finding that Jones failed to present sufficient evidence or information to warrant overturning the DR. Id.

On September 20, 2015, Jones filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus in state circuit court, in which he requested that the circuit court expunge his DR based on the same arguments he raised during his administrative appeal. Resp. Ex. C. On December 21, 2015, the circuit court dismissed the petition because Jones failed to comply with a court order to provide the clerk with information in support of Jones' request to proceed in forma pauperis. Resp. Ex. D. Jones appealed to Florida's First District Court of Appeal (First DCA) but that court initially dismissed the appeal because he failed, again, to comply with the indigency requirements of Florida law. Thereafter, Jones filed three motions requesting to reinstate his appeal and forrehearing. Resp. Ex. E. On May 17, 2016, the First DCA denied Jones' motions, noting that he was required under Florida law to provide documentation in support of his request to proceed as an indigent on appeal. Id. Eventually, Jones complied with Florida's in forma pauperis requirements and the First DCA reinstated his appeal. After review, the First DCA per curiam affirmed the circuit court's dismissal without prejudice of Jones' petition for writ of mandamus. Resp. Ex. F.

III. One-Year Limitations Period

This action was timely filed within the one-year limitations period. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

IV. Evidentiary Hearing

In a habeas corpus proceeding, the burden is on the petitioner to establish the need for a federal evidentiary hearing. See Chavez v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., 647 F.3d 1057, 1060 (11th Cir. 2011). "In deciding whether to grant an evidentiary hearing, a federal court must consider whether such a hearing could enable an applicant to prove the petition's factual allegations, which, if true, would entitle the applicant to federal habeas relief." Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 474 (2007); Jones v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., 834 F.3d 1299, 1318-19 (11th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 2245 (2017). "It follows that if the record refutes the applicant's factual allegations or otherwise precludes habeas relief, a district court is not required to hold an evidentiaryhearing." Schriro, 550 U.S. at 474. The pertinent facts of this case are fully developed in the record before the Court. Because the Court can "adequately assess [Jones'] claim[s] without further factual development," Turner v. Crosby, 339 F.3d 1247, 1275 (11th Cir. 2003), an evidentiary hearing will not be conducted.

V. Governing Legal Principles
A. Standard of Review

When a petitioner seeks to review a DR but is also a state prisoner, the petition is governed by both 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Medberry v. Crosby, 351 F.3d 1049, 1054 (11th Cir. 2003). The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) governs a state prisoner's federal petition for habeas corpus. See Ledford v. Warden, Ga. Diagnostic & Classification Prison, 818 F.3d 600, 642 (11th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 1432 (2017). "'The purpose of AEDPA is to ensure that federal habeas relief functions as a guard against extreme malfunctions in the state criminal justice systems, and not as a means of error correction.'" Id. (quoting Greene v. Fisher, 565 U.S. 34, 38 (2011) (quotation marks omitted)). As such, federal habeas review of final state court decisions is "'greatly circumscribed' and 'highly deferential.'" Id. (quoting Hill v. Humphrey, 662 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2011) (quotation marks omitted)).

The first task of the federal habeas court is to identify the last state court decision, if any, that adjudicated the claim on the merits. See Marshall v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., 828 F.3d 1277, 1285 (11th Cir. 2016). The state court need not issue a written opinion explaining its rationale in order for the state court's decision to qualify as an adjudication on the merits. See Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 100 (2011). Where the state court's adjudication on the merits is unaccompanied by an explanation, the United States Supreme Court has instructed:

[T]he federal court should "look through" the unexplained decision to the last related state-court decision that does provide a relevant rationale. It should then presume that the unexplained decision adopted the same reasoning.

Wilson v. Sellers, 138 S. Ct. 1188, 1192 (2018). The presumption may be rebutted by showing that the higher state court's adjudication most likely relied on different grounds than the lower state court's reasoned decision, such as persuasive alternative grounds that were briefed or argued to the higher court or obvious in the record it reviewed. Id. at 1192, 1196.

If the claim was "adjudicated on the merits" in state court, § 2254(d) bars relitigation of the claim unless the state court's decision (1) "was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States;" or (2) "was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presentedin the State court proceeding." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Richter, 562 U.S. at 97-98. The Eleventh Circuit describes the limited scope of federal review pursuant to § 2254 as follows:

First, § 2254(d)(1) provides for federal review for claims of state courts' erroneous legal conclusions. As explained by the Supreme Court in Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 120 S. Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000), § 2254(d)(1) consists of two distinct clauses: a "contrary to" clause and an "unreasonable application" clause. The "contrary to" clause allows for relief only "if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by [the Supreme] Court on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently than [the Supreme] Court has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts." Id. at 413, 120 S. Ct. at 1523 (plurality opinion). The "unreasonable application" clause allows for relief only "if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from [the Supreme] Court's decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner's case." Id.
Second, § 2254(d)(2) provides for federal review for claims of state courts' erroneous factual determinations. Section 2254(d)(2) allows federal courts to grant relief only if the state court's denial of the petitioner's claim "was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). The Supreme Court has not yet defined § 2254(d)(2)'s "precise relationship" to § 2254(e)(1), which imposes a burden on the petitioner
...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT