Hale v. Crow

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISON
ALONZO DARRELL HALE, 	*
AIS 340006, 	*
*
Petitioner, 	*
*
vs. 	* 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 25-0060-KD-B
*
ROLANDA CALLOWAY, WARDEN III, 	*
OF KILBY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, *
ET AL., 	*
*
Respondents. 	*
ORDER
Petitioner 	Alonzo 	Darrell 	Hale, 	an 	inmate 	at 	Kilby
Correctional 	Facility, 	filed 	the 	instant 	petition 	seeking 	habeas
corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 	(Doc. 1). 	Hale is currently
serving a seventeen-year custodial sentence imposed by the Circuit
Court of Baldwin County, Alabama, following his conviction (based
on 	a 	guilty 	plea) 	for 	reckless 	manslaughter.1,2 	In 	his 	petition,
1 	Doc. 1; 	State 	of 	Alabama 	v. 	Alonzo 	Darrell 	Hale, 	No. 05-CC-
2021-00461.00, Doc. 217 (Circuit Court of Baldwin County, Alabama).
2 	The Alabama Department of Corrections facility in which Hale is
incarcerated lies within the Middle District of Alabama. 	The state
court which convicted and sentenced Hale lies within the Southern
District 	of 	Alabama. 	Under 	28 	U.S.C. 	§ 	2241(d), 	Hale’s 	habeas
petition 	is 	properly 	brought 	in 	either 	of 	those 	two 	federal
districts:
Where an application for a writ of habeas corpus is made
by 	a 	person 	in 	custody 	under 	the 	judgment 	and 	sentence
of 	a 	State 	court 	of 	a 	State 	which 	contains 	two 	or 	more
Federal judicial districts, the application may be filed
in 	the 	district 	court 	for 	the 	district 	wherein 	such
Case 1:25-cv-00060-KD-B Doc# 2 Filed 02/14/25 Page 1 of 7 PageID#
<pageID>

2
Hale challenges “the validity of [his] conviction or sentence” on
multiple grounds. (Doc. 1 at 2).
“Federal 	courts 	are 	obligated 	to 	look 	beyond 	the 	label 	of 	a
pro 	se 	inmate's 	motion 	to 	determine 	if 	it 	is 	cognizable 	under 	a
different statutory framework.” United States v. Stossel, 348 F.3d
1320, 1322 n.2 (11th Cir. 2003). 	Accord, Shevgert v. United States,
No. 	21-12135, 	2023 	WL 	370842, 	at 	*1 	(11th 	Cir. 	Jan. 	24, 	2023).
Upon 	review 	of 	Hale’s 	§ 	2241 	petition 	and 	the 	claims 	asserted
therein, 	the 	Court 	concludes 	that 	Hale’s 	claims 	are 	not 	properly
brought 	in 	a 	§ 	2241 	petition; 	rather, 	Hale’s 	claims 	should 	be
brought in a habeas corpus action filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Acknowledging 	that 	previous 	case 	law 	regarding 	habeas
petitions 	filed 	by 	state 	prisoners 	had 	“created 	unnecessary
confusion” 	by 	not 	always 	being 	precise 	when 	describing 	the
appropriate habeas vehicle, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit 	explored 	the 	legislative 	history 	of 	28 U.S.C. 	§ 2241,
28 U.S.C. 	§ 2254, 	and 	28 U.S.C. 	§ 2255 	in 	Medberry 	v. 	Crosby,
person 	is 	in 	custody 	or 	in 	the 	district 	court 	for 	the
district 	within 	which 	the 	State 	court 	was 	held 	which
convicted 	and 	sentenced 	him 	and 	each 	of 	such 	district
courts 	shall 	have 	concurrent 	jurisdiction 	to 	entertain
the 	application. 	The 	district 	court 	for 	the 	district
wherein such an application is filed in the exercise of
its 	discretion 	and 	in 	furtherance 	of 	justice 	may
transfer the application to the other district court for
hearing and determination.
28 	U.S.C.A. 	§ 	2241(d). 	Thus, 	this 	Court 	has 	jurisdiction 	to
entertain Hale’s habeas petition.
Case 1:25-cv-00060-KD-B Doc# 2 Filed 02/14/25 Page 2 of 7 PageID#
<pageID>

3
351 F.3d 	1049 	(11th 	Cir. 	2003). 	The 	Medberry 	Court 	determined
that
[A] 	state 	prisoner 	seeking 	post-conviction 	relief
from a federal court has but one remedy: 	an application
for a writ of habeas corpus. 	All applications for writs
of habeas corpus are governed by § 2241, which generally
authorizes 	federal 	courts 	to 	grant 	the 	writ 	-- 	to 	both
federal 	and 	state 	prisoners. 	Most 	state 	prisoners’
applications for writs of habeas corpus are subject also
to 	the 	additional 	restrictions 	of 	§ 	2254. 	That 	is, 	if
a state prisoner is “in custody pursuant to the judgment
of a State court” his petition is subject to § 2254.
Medberry, 	351 	F.3d 	at 	1062 	(quoting 	28 	U.S.C. 	§ 2254) 	(underline
added). 	The 	Eleventh 	Circuit 	has 	cautioned 	that 	“[a] 	state
prisoner 	cannot 	evade 	the 	procedural 	requirements 	of 	§ 2254 	by
filing something purporting to be a § 2241 petition. 	If the terms
of § 2254 apply to a state habeas petitioner – i.e., if he is ‘in
custody 	pursuant 	to 	the 	judgment 	of 	a 	State 	court’ 	– 	then 	[the
district 	court] 	must 	apply 	its 	requirements 	to 	him. 	. 	. 	. 	[We]
hold 	that 	Appellant’s 	petition 	is 	subject 	to 	both 	§ 2241 	and
§ 2254.” 	Thomas 	v. 	Crosby, 	371 	F.3d 	782, 	787 	(11th 	Cir. 	2004)
(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) and applying Medberry). 	Here, it is
undisputed 	that 	Hale 	is 	“in 	custody 	pursuant 	to 	the 	judgment 	of
State 	court” 	and, 	therefore, 	the 	claims 	in 	his 	§ 2241 	petition
must 	meet 	the 	additional 	requirements 	proscribed 	for 	a 	§ 2254
petition.
In 	Castro 	v. 	United 	States, 	540 	U.S. 	375 	(2003), 	the 	United
States 	Supreme 	Court 	held 	that 	a 	district 	court 	should 	not
Case 1:25-cv-00060-KD-B Doc# 2 Filed 02/14/25 Page 3 of 7 PageID#
<pageID>

4
recharacterize 	a 	pro 	se 	litigant’s 	post-conviction 	motion 	as 	the
prisoner’s 	first 	§ 2255 	motion 	without 	providing 	adequate 	notice
and 	warning 	to 	the 	defendant 	as 	to 	the 	consequences 	of
recharacterization. 	Id. 	at 	383. 	Although 	Castro 	addressed
recharacterization of a federal prisoner’s non-§ 2255 motion into
a 	§ 	2255 	motion, 	the 	Eleventh 	Circuit 	also 	requires 	a 	district
court to provide Castro’s “notice-and-warning” to a state prisoner
before recharacterizing his/her non-§ 2254 petition into a § 2254
petition. 	Ponton 	v. 	Secretary, 	Florida 	Dep’t. 	of 	Corrections,
891 F.3d 950, 953, n.3 (11th Cir. 2018) (“[T]he Castro notice-and-
warning requirement applies to pleadings recharacterized as § 2254
petitions.”) 	(citations 	omitted). 	See 	also, 	Dickson 	v. 	Dickson,
Civil 	Action 	No. 1:21-00231-TFM-N, 	2021 WL 	11618034, 	at 	*2 	(S.D.
Ala. May 18, 2021) (following Ponton).
In 	accordance 	with 	Castro 	and 	Ponton, 	Hale 	is 	hereby 	placed
on 	notice 	that 	the 	Court 	intends 	to 	recharacterize 	his 	§ 2241
petition 	(Doc. 1) 	as 	a 	28 	U.S.C. 	§ 2254 	petition. 	Further, 	Hale
is advised that this recharacterization of his § 2241 petition to
a 	§ 2254 	petition 	carries 	serious 	consequences. 	If 	the 	§ 2254
petition, 	so 	construed, 	is 	denied 	on 	the 	merits, 	any 	subsequent
§ 2254 motion Hale may wish to bring challenging his sentence would
be subject to the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), which states:
(1) 	A 	claim 	presented 	in 	a 	second 	or 	successive 	habeas
corpus application under section 2254 that was presented
in a prior application shall be dismissed.
Case 1:25-cv-00060-KD-B Doc# 2 Filed 02/14/25 Page 4 of 7 PageID#
<pageID>

5
(2) 	A 	claim 	presented 	in 	a 	second 	or 	successive 	habeas
corpus 	application 	under 	section 	2254 	that 	was 	not
presented 	in 	a 	prior 	application 	shall 	be 	dismissed
unless—
(A) 	the 	applicant 	shows 	that 	the 	claim 	relies 	on
a 	new 	rule 	of 	constitutional 	law, 	made
retroactive 	to 	cases 	on 	collateral 	review 	by
the 	Supreme 	Court, 	that 	was 	previously
unavailable; or
(B) 	(i) the factual predicate for the claim could
not 	have 	been 	discovered 	previously 	through
the exercise of due diligence; and
(ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven
and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole,
would be sufficient to establish by clear and
convincing 	evidence 	that, 	but 	for
constitutional 	error, 	no 	reasonable
factfinder 	would 	have 	found 	the 	applicant
guilty of the underlying offense.
28 U.S.C. 	§ 2244(b); 	see 	also 	Rule 9 	of 	the 	Rules 	Governing
Section 	2254 	Proceedings 	for 	the 	United 	States 	District 	Courts
(“Before presenting a second or successive [§ 2254] petition, the
petitioner 	must 	obtain 	an 	order 	from 	the 	appropriate 	court 	of
appeals 	authorizing 	the 	district 	court 	to 	consider 	the
petition ....”).
At 	this 	juncture, 	Hale 	has 	the 	options 	of
withdrawing/dismissing 	his 	§ 	2241 	petition 	OR 	of 	filing 	a 	§ 2254
petition 	which 	includes 	all 	available 	claims 	for 	relief 	that 	he
may wish to assert. 	Accordingly, it is ORDERED that, on or before
March 	14, 	2025, 	Hale 	must 	file 	either 	(1) 	a 	written 	motion 	to
withdraw/dismiss 	his 	§ 2241 	petition 	(which 	will 	result 	in 	the
Case 1:25-cv-00060-KD-B Doc# 2 Filed 02/14/25 Page 5 of 7 PageID#
<pageID>

6
termination 	of 	this 	action) 	or 	(2) 	a 	§ 2254 	petition 	using 	the
Court’s 	required 	form 	for 	§ 2254 	petitions.3 	If 	Hale 	chooses
option (2) and files a § 2254 petition, he must include all claims
for 	relief 	he 	wishes 	to 	bring 	under 	§ 2254. 	Hale 	is 	cautioned
that 	failure 	to 	file 	either 	a 	motion 	to 	withdraw/dismiss 	or 	a
§ 2254 	petition 	will 	result 	in 	a 	recommendation 	that 	this 	action
be 	dismissed 	without 	prejudice 	for 	failure 	to 	prosecute 	and 	to
obey the Court’s order.
Additionally, 	a 	review 	of 	the 	docket 	reflects 	that 	Hale 	did
not pay the $5.00 statutory filing fee nor file a motion to proceed
without prepayment of fees at the time he filed his petition. 	Hale
is 	thus 	ORDERED 	to 	pay 	the 	$5.00 	filing 	fee 	or 	file 	a 	motion 	to
proceed without prepayment of fees no later than March 14, 2025.
Any 	motion 	to 	proceed 	without 	prepayment 	of 	fees 	must 	be 	on
this 	Court’s 	required 	form 	for 	such 	motions. 	The 	motion 	must
include 	a 	financial 	statement 	containing 	all 	transactions 	in
Hale’s inmate account for the six (6) months immediately preceding
the 	date 	of 	the 	filing 	of 	his 	petition. 	The 	financial 	statement
must be signed by an authorized jail official.
3 	See S.D. Ala. CivLR 9(a) (“All persons applying or petitioning
for release from custody under . . . 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to challenge
a 	sentence 	imposed 	by 	this 	Court, 	must 	file 	their
. . . 	petition 	. . . 	with 	the 	Clerk 	using 	forms 	available 	from
the 	Court.”); 	Rule 2(d) 	of 	the 	Rules 	Governing 	Section 	2254
Proceedings 	for 	the 	United 	States 	District 	Courts 	(“The 	petition
must substantially follow either the form appended to these rules
or a form prescribed by a local district-court rule.”).
Case 1:25-cv-00060-KD-B Doc# 2 Filed 02/14/25 Page 6 of 7 PageID#
<pageID>

7
Hale 	is 	cautioned 	that 	his 	failure 	to 	either 	pay 	the 	filing
fee or file a motion to proceed without prepayment of fees within
the 	prescribed 	time 	will 	result 	in 	a 	recommendation 	that 	this
action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and
to 	obey 	the 	Court’s 	order. 	Additionally, 	it 	is 	Hale’s
responsibility 	to 	keep 	the 	Court 	appraised 	of 	any 	change 	in 	his
address. S.D. Ala. GenLR 83.5(b). ("[a]ny person proceeding pro se
must, 	at 	all 	times 	during 	the 	pendency 	of 	the 	action 	to 	which 	he
or 	she 	is 	a 	party, 	keep 	the 	Clerk 	informed 	of 	his 	or 	her 	current
address and . . . must promptly notify the Clerk of any change of
address 	. 	. 	. 	. 	Failure 	to 	comply 	with 	this 	Rule 	may 	result 	in
sanction, 	including 	dismissal 	of 	a 	pro 	se 	plaintiff's
action 	. 	. 	. 	."). 	If 	Hale 	fails 	to 	immediately 	advise 	the 	Court
of 	a 	change 	in 	his 	address, 	said 	failure 	shall 	result 	in 	a
recommendation 	that 	action 	be 	dismissed 	without 	prejudice 	for
failure to prosecute and to obey the Court’s order.
The 	Clerk 	is 	DIRECTED 	to 	send 	to 	Hale 	the 	current 	forms 	for
a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and a
motion to proceed without prepayment of fees.
DONE this 14th day of February, 2025.
/s/ SONJA F. BIVINS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-00060-KD-B Doc# 2 Filed 02/14/25 Page 7 of 7 PageID#
<pageID>