Crowell v. Rooker

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
RODRIQUEZ CROWELL, # 283285, 	*
*
Petitioner, 	*
*
vs. 	* CIVIL ACTION NO. 24-00475-KD-B
*
CAPTAIN G. ROOKER, 	*
*
Respondent. 	*
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This 	matter 	is 	before 	the 	Court 	on 	review.1 	Petitioner
Rodriquez Crowell, an Alabama prison inmate proceeding without an
attorney, 	filed 	the 	instant 	action 	seeking 	habeas 	corpus 	relief
pursuant 	to 	28 	U.S.C. 	§ 	2254. 	However, 	subsequent 	to 	Petitioner
Crowell’s initiation of this action, he has failed to prosecute it
and failed to obey this Court’s directives. 	Accordingly, and for
the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	below, 	the 	undersigned 	recommends 	that
Petitioner 	Crowell’s 	§ 	2254 	habeas 	petition 	(Doc. 	1) 	and 	this
action be DISMISSED without prejudice.
I. 	BACKGROUND
In 	September 	2024, 	Petitioner 	Rodriquez 	Crowell 	(“Crowell”)
initiated this action by filing a § 2254 habeas petition, a motion
to proceed without prepayment of fees, and a copy of his prisoner
1 	This 	case 	was 	referred 	to 	the 	undersigned 	Magistrate 	Judge 	for
appropriate action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and S.D. Ala.
GenLR 72(a)(2)(R).
Case 2:24-cv-00475-KD-B Doc# 8 Filed 02/11/25 Page 1 of 9 PageID#
<pageID>

2
trust 	fund 	account 	statement 	in 	the 	United 	States 	District 	Court
for the Middle District of Alabama. 	(Docs. 1, 2, 3). 	In December
2024, 	this 	action 	was 	transferred 	to 	the 	United 	States 	District
Court 	for 	the 	Southern 	District 	of 	Alabama 	pursuant 	to 	28 	U.S.C.
§ 2241(d). 	(Docs. 4, 5, 6).
The 	undersigned 	“promptly 	examine[d]” 	Crowell’s 	petition 	in
accordance 	with 	Rule 	4 	of 	the 	Rules 	Governing 	Section 	2254 	Cases
in the United States District Courts and found that it was not on
the 	current 	form 	required 	by 	this 	Court 	for 	a 	§ 	2254 	habeas
petition. 	Thus, 	in 	an 	order 	dated 	December 	26, 	2024, 	the
undersigned 	ordered 	Crowell 	to 	refile 	his 	petition 	on 	or 	before
January 	27, 	2025, 	using 	the 	current 	form 	required 	by 	this 	Court
for a § 2254 habeas petition. 	(Doc. 7 at 1). 	In the same order,
the 	undersigned 	denied 	Crowell’s 	motion 	to 	proceed 	without
prepayment 	of 	fees 	because 	a 	review 	of 	his 	prisoner 	trust 	fund
account statement revealed that he had ample funds in his account
to pay the $5.00 habeas filing fee when he filed this action. 	(Id.
at 1-2). 	The undersigned ordered Crowell to pay the $5.00 filing
fee for this habeas action on or before January 27, 2025. 	(Id. at
2).
The undersigned cautioned Crowell that if he failed to fully
comply 	with 	the 	Court’s 	directives 	within 	the 	prescribed 	time,
this action would be subject to dismissal for failure to prosecute
and 	failure 	to 	obey 	the 	Court’s 	order. 	(Id.). 	The 	undersigned
Case 2:24-cv-00475-KD-B Doc# 8 Filed 02/11/25 Page 2 of 9 PageID#
<pageID>

3
directed the Clerk of Court to send Crowell a copy of his original
§ 	2254 	habeas 	petition 	for 	his 	reference, 	along 	with 	a 	copy 	of
this 	Court’s 	current 	§ 	2254 	habeas 	petition 	form 	for 	his 	use.
(Id.).
The 	Court’s 	December 	26, 	2024 	order 	and 	accompanying
documents were mailed to Crowell at Camden Work Release, and they
have not been returned to the Court as undeliverable. 	However, to
date, 	Crowell 	has 	not 	refiled 	his 	§ 	2254 	habeas 	petition 	on 	this
Court’s 	required 	form, 	despite 	being 	ordered 	to 	do 	so 	no 	later
than January 27, 2025. 	Crowell also has not paid the $5.00 filing
fee, despite being ordered to do so no later than January 27, 2025.
Crowell 	has 	not 	requested 	additional 	time 	to 	comply 	with 	the
Court’s 	order, 	he 	has 	not 	indicated 	that 	he 	is 	unable 	to 	comply
with 	the 	Court’s 	order, 	and 	he 	has 	not 	provided 	any 	explanation
for 	his 	failure 	to 	timely 	comply 	with 	the 	Court’s 	order.
Additionally, 	an 	online 	search 	reveals 	that 	Crowell 	is 	still
incarcerated 	at 	Camden 	Work 	Release, 	where 	the 	Court’s 	order 	and
accompanying documents were sent.
II. 	DISCUSSION
A court “may sua sponte dismiss an action pursuant to Federal
Rule 	of 	Civil 	Procedure 	41(b) 	if 	the 	plaintiff 	fails 	to 	comply
with court rules or a court order.” 	Smith v. Bruster, 424 F. App’x
912, 	914 	(11th 	Cir. 	2011) 	(per 	curiam) 	(citing 	Fed. 	R. 	Civ. 	P.
41(b); 	Betty 	K 	Agencies, 	Ltd. 	v. 	M/V 	Monada, 	432 	F.3d 	1333, 	1337
Case 2:24-cv-00475-KD-B Doc# 8 Filed 02/11/25 Page 3 of 9 PageID#
<pageID>

4
(11th Cir. 2005)). 	“In addition to its power under Rule 41(b), a
court also has the inherent ability to dismiss a claim in light of
its authority to enforce its orders and provide for the efficient
disposition of litigation.” 	Zocaras v. Castro, 465 F.3d 479, 483
(11th 	Cir. 	2006) 	(citing 	Link 	v. 	Wabash 	R.R., 	370 	U.S. 	626, 	630–
31 	(1962)). 	To 	dismiss 	an 	action 	with 	prejudice 	for 	failure 	to
prosecute, 	failure 	to 	comply 	with 	the 	Federal 	Rules 	of 	Civil
Procedure, or failure to follow a court order, the court must find
“a 	clear 	record 	of 	delay 	or 	willful 	conduct 	and 	that 	lesser
sanctions 	are 	inadequate 	to 	correct 	such 	conduct.” 	Betty 	K
Agencies, 432 F.3d at 1339. 	“While dismissal is an extraordinary
remedy, dismissal upon disregard of an order, especially where the
litigant 	has 	been 	forewarned, 	generally 	is 	not 	an 	abuse 	of
discretion.” 	Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989).
As 	noted 	previously, 	Crowell 	has 	made 	no 	apparent 	effort 	to
comply 	with 	the 	Court’s 	order 	to 	refile 	his 	§ 	2254 	petition 	on
this 	Court’s 	current 	form 	and 	to 	pay 	the 	$5.00 	filing 	fee. 	Nor
has Crowell explained his failure to comply with the Court’s order,
indicated 	that 	he 	is 	unable 	to 	comply, 	or 	sought 	additional 	time
within which to comply. 	Crowell’s lack of response to the Court’s
order 	suggests 	that 	he 	has 	lost 	interest 	in 	and 	abandoned 	the
prosecution 	of 	this 	action. 	In 	light 	of 	Crowell’s 	failure 	to
prosecute this action and failure to obey the Court’s order, it is
recommended 	that 	this 	action 	be 	DISMISSED 	without 	prejudice
Case 2:24-cv-00475-KD-B Doc# 8 Filed 02/11/25 Page 4 of 9 PageID#
<pageID>

5
pursuant to Rule 41(b) and/or this Court’s inherent authority, as
it 	appears 	no 	lesser 	sanction 	will 	suffice 	to 	induce 	his
compliance.
III. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Pursuant 	to 	Rule 	11(a) 	of 	the 	Rules 	Governing 	Section 	2254
Cases, 	“[t]he 	district 	court 	must 	issue 	or 	deny 	a 	certificate 	of
appealability 	when 	it 	enters 	a 	final 	order 	adverse 	to 	the
applicant.” 	Rules 	Governing 	§ 	2254 	Cases, 	R. 	11(a). 	The 	habeas
corpus statute makes clear that an applicant is entitled to appeal
a district court’s denial of his habeas corpus petition only where
a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
See 	28 	U.S.C. 	§ 	2253(c)(1). 	A 	certificate 	of 	appealability 	may
issue only where “the applicant has made a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.” 	Id. at § 2253(c)(2).
Where 	habeas 	relief 	is 	denied 	on 	procedural 	grounds 	without
reaching 	the 	merits 	of 	any 	underlying 	constitutional 	claim(s), 	a
certificate 	of 	appealability 	“should 	issue 	[only] 	when 	the
prisoner 	shows, 	at 	least, 	that 	jurists 	of 	reason 	would 	find 	it
debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial
of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it
debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural
ruling.” 	Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 	A prisoner
seeking a certificate of appealability “must prove something more
than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith
Case 2:24-cv-00475-KD-B Doc# 8 Filed 02/11/25 Page 5 of 9 PageID#
<pageID>

6
on 	his 	or 	her 	part.” 	Miller-El 	v. 	Cockrell, 	537 	U.S. 	322, 	338
(2003) 	(quotations 	omitted). 	However, 	a 	certificate 	of
appealability 	“does 	not 	require 	a 	showing 	that 	the 	appeal 	will
succeed.” 	Id. at 337.
After 	reviewing 	the 	issues 	presented 	in 	light 	of 	the
applicable 	standards, 	the 	undersigned 	submits 	that 	reasonable
jurists 	would 	not 	conclude 	that 	this 	Court 	is 	in 	error 	in
dismissing 	the 	instant 	petition 	for 	failure 	to 	prosecute 	and 	to
obey 	the 	Court’s 	order, 	or 	that 	Crowell 	should 	be 	allowed 	to
proceed 	further. 	As 	a 	result, 	it 	is 	recommended 	that 	Crowell 	be
DENIED 	a 	certificate 	of 	appealability 	in 	conjunction 	with 	the
dismissal of the present § 2254 habeas petition.2
IV. 	APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS
“An 	appeal 	may 	not 	be 	taken 	in 	forma 	pauperis 	if 	the 	trial
court 	certifies 	in 	writing 	that 	it 	is 	not 	taken 	in 	good 	faith.”
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
A 	party 	demonstrates 	good 	faith 	by 	seeking 	appellate
2 	Rule 	11(a) 	of 	the 	Rules 	Governing 	Section 	2254 	Cases 	in 	the
United 	States 	District 	Courts 	provides 	for 	the 	following
procedure: “The district court must issue or deny a certificate of
appealability 	when 	it 	enters 	a 	final 	order 	adverse 	to 	the
applicant. 	Before entering the final order, the court may direct
the 	parties 	to 	submit 	arguments 	on 	whether 	a 	certificate 	should
issue.” 	Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, R. 11(a). 	Accordingly, if
there 	is 	an 	objection 	to 	this 	recommendation 	by 	Crowell, 	he 	may
bring 	his 	argument 	to 	the 	attention 	of 	the 	District 	Judge 	in 	the
objections 	permitted 	to 	this 	report 	and 	recommendation. 	Should
this 	Court 	deny 	a 	certificate 	of 	appealability, 	Crowell 	“may 	not
appeal 	the 	denial 	but 	may 	seek 	a 	certificate 	from 	the 	court 	of
appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22.” 	Id.
Case 2:24-cv-00475-KD-B Doc# 8 Filed 02/11/25 Page 6 of 9 PageID#
<pageID>

7
review of any issue that is not frivolous when examined
under 	an 	objective 	standard. 	See 	Coppedge 	v. 	United
States, 369 U.S. 438, 445, 82 S. Ct. 917, 921, 8 L. Ed.
2d 	21 	(1962). 	An 	issue 	is 	frivolous 	when 	it 	appears
that 	“the 	legal 	theories 	are 	indisputably 	meritless.”
Carroll 	v. 	Gross, 	984 	F.2d 	392, 	393 	(11th 	Cir. 	1993)
(citations 	omitted). 	In 	other 	words, 	an 	IFP 	action 	is
frivolous, and thus not brought in good faith, if it is
“without 	arguable 	merit 	either 	in 	law 	or 	fact.” 	Bilal
v. 	Driver, 	251 	F.3d 	1346, 	1349 	(11th 	Cir. 	2001). 	More
specifically, 	“arguable 	means 	capable 	of 	being
convincingly 	argued.” 	Sun 	v. 	Forrester, 	939 	F.2d 	924,
925 (11th Cir. 1991) (internal quotations and citations
omitted). 	Nevertheless, where a “claim is arguable, but
ultimately 	will 	be 	unsuccessful,” 	it 	should 	be 	allowed
to proceed. 	Cofield v. Ala. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 936 F.2d
512, 515 (11th Cir. 1991).
Ghee 	v. 	Retailers 	Nat. 	Bank, 	271 	F. 	App’x 	858, 	859-60 	(11th 	Cir.
2008) (per curiam).
Considering this legal standard, and for the reasons outlined
above, it is recommended that the Court CERTIFY that any appeal by
Crowell 	of 	the 	dismissal 	of 	the 	present 	§ 	2254 	petition 	would 	be
without merit and therefore not taken in good faith, thus denying
him entitlement to appeal in forma pauperis.3
V. 	CONCLUSION
For 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	above, 	the 	undersigned 	RECOMMENDS
that Crowell’s § 2254 habeas petition (Doc. 1) and this action be
DISMISSED 	without 	prejudice 	for 	failure 	to 	prosecute 	and 	failure
to 	obey 	the 	Court’s 	order. 	The 	undersigned 	further 	RECOMMENDS
3 Crowell may file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal
with 	the 	Eleventh 	Circuit 	Court 	of 	Appeals 	in 	accordance 	with
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(5).
Case 2:24-cv-00475-KD-B Doc# 8 Filed 02/11/25 Page 7 of 9 PageID#
<pageID>

8
that 	Crowell 	be 	DENIED 	a 	certificate 	of 	appealability, 	and 	that
the 	Court 	CERTIFY 	that 	any 	appeal 	by 	Crowell 	of 	the 	dismissal 	of
the 	present 	§ 	2254 	habeas 	petition 	would 	be 	without 	merit 	and
therefore not taken in good faith, thus denying him entitlement to
appeal in forma pauperis.
The 	Clerk 	is 	DIRECTED 	to 	send 	copies 	of 	Crowell’s 	habeas
petition (Doc. 1) and this report and recommendation to Respondent
Captain G. Rooker, Camden Community-Based Facility/Community Work
Center, 	1780 	Alabama 	Highway 	221, 	Camden, 	Alabama 	36726, 	and 	to
the Attorney General of the State of Alabama.
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO FILE OBJECTIONS
A 	copy 	of 	this 	report 	and 	recommendation 	shall 	be 	served 	on
all parties in the manner provided by law. 	Any party who objects
to 	this 	recommendation 	or 	anything 	in 	it 	must, 	within 	fourteen
(14) 	days 	of 	the 	date 	of 	service 	of 	this 	document, 	file 	specific
written objections with the Clerk of this Court. 	See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); 	Fed. 	R. 	Civ. 	P. 	72(b); 	S.D. 	Ala. 	GenLR 	72(c). 	The
parties 	should 	note 	that 	under 	Eleventh 	Circuit 	Rule 	3-1, 	“[a]
party 	failing 	to 	object 	to 	a 	magistrate 	judge’s 	findings 	or
recommendations 	contained 	in 	a 	report 	and 	recommendation 	in
accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the
right 	to 	challenge 	on 	appeal 	the 	district 	court’s 	order 	based 	on
unobjected-to 	factual 	and 	legal 	conclusions 	if 	the 	party 	was
informed of the time period for objecting and the consequences on
Case 2:24-cv-00475-KD-B Doc# 8 Filed 02/11/25 Page 8 of 9 PageID#
<pageID>

9
appeal 	for 	failing 	to 	object. 	In 	the 	absence 	of 	a 	proper
objection, however, the court may review on appeal for plain error
if necessary in the interests of justice.” 	11th Cir. R. 3-1.
In 	order 	to 	be 	specific, 	an 	objection 	must 	identify 	the
specific 	finding 	or 	recommendation 	to 	which 	objection 	is 	made,
state 	the 	basis 	for 	the 	objection, 	and 	specify 	the 	place 	in 	the
Magistrate 	Judge’s 	report 	and 	recommendation 	where 	the 	disputed
determination is found. 	An objection that merely incorporates by
reference 	or 	refers 	to 	the 	briefing 	done 	by 	the 	Magistrate 	Judge
is not specific.
DONE this 11th day of February, 2025.
/S/ SONJA F. BIVINS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:24-cv-00475-KD-B Doc# 8 Filed 02/11/25 Page 9 of 9 PageID#
<pageID>