Cooley v. Alabama Department of Mental Health

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JESSE COOLEY, JR., 	*
*
Petitioner, 	*
*
vs. 	* CIVIL ACTION NO. 22-00325-TFM-B
*
ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL 	*
HEALTH, 	*
*
Respondent. 	*
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Jesse Cooley, Jr., an inmate at the Mobile County
Metro Jail, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus under
28 	U.S.C. 	§ 	2254.1 	(Doc. 	1). 	This 	matter 	has 	been 	referred 	to
the 	undersigned 	Magistrate 	Judge 	pursuant 	to 	28 	U.S.C. 	§
636(b)(1)(B), S.D. Ala. GenLR 72(a)(2)(R), and Rule 8 of the Rules
Governing 	§ 	2254 	Cases. 	For 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	below, 	it 	is
recommended that the instant petition be DISMISSED as duplicative
of an earlier-filed § 2254 habeas petition currently pending before
this Court.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Cooley’s petition in this matter names the Alabama Department
of Mental Health as the Respondent and challenges his confinement
1 At 	the 	time 	of 	filing, 	Cooley 	did 	not 	pay 	the 	$5.00 	statutory
filing fee and did not file a motion to proceed without prepayment
of fees.

2
following a criminal judgment in Mobile County Circuit Court Case
Number CC-1981-000725.00 finding him not guilty of murder by reason
of 	insanity. 	(Id. 	at 	1-2, 	5-6). 	Cooley 	claims 	that 	he 	“keep[s]
being 	confine[d] 	without 	cause,” 	despite 	being 	completely
rehabilitated 	of 	mental 	problems, 	knowing 	right 	from 	wrong, 	and
not having broken the law in forty years. 	(Id.). 	Cooley contends
that 	the 	“group 	homes 	[are] 	full 	of 	unlawful 	drugs” 	and 	states
that 	he 	has 	“trouble 	being 	around 	any 	kind 	of 	unlawful 	drugs.”
(Id. at 7). 	He also asserts that the State cannot provide adequate
treatment 	for 	his 	cancer. 	(Id. 	at 	8). 	Cooley 	asks 	the 	Court 	to
“let 	[him] 	go 	home” 	or 	to 	send 	him 	to 	AltaPointe 	Health’s
“hospit[a]l unit” or to “Independent Living United for the rest of
[his] life.” 	(Id. at 11).
Prior to filing the instant petition, Cooley filed a petition
in 	this 	Court 	seeking 	habeas 	corpus 	relief 	under 	§ 	2254 	which,
although 	not 	identical 	in 	form 	to 	the 	instant 	petition, 	raised
essentially the same claims and sought the same relief. 	See Cooley
v. Cochran, No. 1:22-cv-00297-CG-B (S.D. Ala. filed July 7, 2022),
ECF No. 1. 	Because Cooley’s petition in that case was not on this
Court’s required § 2254 petition form, the Court ordered Cooley to
refile his petition using the required form. 	Id., ECF No. 2. 	In
response, Cooley filed a § 2254 petition on the Court’s form, which

3
reiterated 	and 	expounded 	on 	his 	claims.2 	Id., 	ECF 	No. 	3. 	A
comparison 	of 	that 	petition 	with 	the 	instant 	petition 	reflects
that the petition in Cooley’s earlier-filed action challenges the
same confinement, raises substantially the same claims, and seeks
the same relief as the petition in this action.
II. 	DISCUSSION
In 	light 	of 	the 	foregoing, 	the 	instant 	petition 	is
duplicative 	of 	another 	action 	currently 	pending 	in 	this 	Court.
See I.A. Durbin, Inc. v. Jefferson Nat. Bank, 793 F.2d 1541, 1551
(11th Cir. 1986) (“[A] suit is duplicative of another suit if the
parties, 	issues 	and 	available 	relief 	do 	not 	significantly 	differ
between 	the 	two 	actions.”). 	In 	order 	to 	avoid 	duplicative
litigation, a trial court may, in the exercise of its discretion,
either stay or dismiss a duplicative action. 	Id. at 1551-52.
The undersigned can discern no legitimate reason for staying
this 	action, 	given 	that 	Cooley 	is 	challenging 	his 	confinement 	in
an 	earlier-filed 	action 	currently 	pending 	before 	this 	Court 	on
substantially 	the 	same 	grounds 	as 	those 	raised 	in 	the 	instant
petition. 	Accordingly, 	the 	undersigned 	recommends 	that 	the
instant 	habeas 	corpus 	petition 	and 	this 	action 	be 	dismissed 	as
duplicative of Case No. 1:22-cv-00297-CG-B.
2 The 	operative 	§ 	2254 	petition 	in 	Cooley’s 	earlier-filed 	action
appears 	to 	list 	“Mr. 	Sam 	Chochran 	or 	The 	Mental 	health 	– 	Miss
Miller 	mental 	health 	worker 	over 	911” 	as 	the 	Respondent. 	See
Cooley v. Cochran, No. 1:22-cv-00297-CG-B, ECF No. 3 at 1.

4
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, as here, a habeas petition is dismissed on procedural
grounds 	without 	reaching 	the 	merits 	of 	any 	underlying
constitutional claim, 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). 	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 	as 	duplicative 	or 	that 	Cooley
should 	be 	allowed 	to 	proceed 	further. 	Thus, 	the 	undersigned

5
submits 	that 	Cooley 	is 	not 	entitled 	to 	a 	certificate 	of
appealability 	and 	should 	not 	be 	permitted 	to 	proceed 	in 	forma
pauperis on appeal.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	above, 	the 	undersigned 	RECOMMENDS
that 	Petitioner 	Jesse 	Cooley, 	Jr.’s 	§ 	2254 	habeas 	petition 	(Doc.
1) and this action be DISMISSED as duplicative of Cooley’s earlier-
filed 	habeas 	proceeding, 	Case 	No. 	1:22-cv-00297-CG-B, 	which 	is
currently pending before this Court. 	The undersigned also submits
that Cooley is not entitled to a certificate of appealability and
is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
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

6
informed of the time period for objecting and the consequences on
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 18th day of October, 2022.
/s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 	_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE