Crayton v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Pinellas County)
This text of Crayton v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Pinellas County) (Crayton v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Pinellas County)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
FREDDIE CRAYTON,
Petitioner,
v. Case No. 8:23-cv-1204-WFJ-MRM
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent. /
ORDER
Freddie Crayton, a former Florida prisoner, initiated this action by filing a document titled “Motion for Reconsideration Requested Recusal.” (Doc. 1). Mr. Crayton asks this Court to “grant a motion to recuse” Judge Nelly Khouzam from an appeal he filed in the Second District Court of Appeal. (Id. at 26). He also raises several challenges to his 2003 convictions for sexual offenses. (Id. at 1-2, 5-26). Upon review, this action must be dismissed without prejudice. First, this Court lacks the authority to order the recusal of a state-court judge. See, e.g., Shapiro v. Ingram, 207 F. App’x 938, 940 (11th Cir. 2006) (holding that plaintiff’s requested “injunctive relief”—reversal of state-court orders regarding recusal—would “unduly interfere with state-court proceedings”); Greene v. Raffensperger, 599 F. Supp. 3d 1283, 1302 (N.D. Ga. 2022) (noting that federal courts routinely abstain from “cases where plaintiffs seek federal injunctions requiring the recusal of state-court judges” (collecting cases)). Second, to the extent that Mr. Crayton seeks to collaterally attack his 2003 convictions, the Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate those challenges. Mr. Crayton previously sought—and was denied—federal habeas relief regarding the 2003 convictions, Crayton v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., No. 8:14-cv-2234-CEH-MAP, 2017 WL 4310266, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 28, 2017), and he has not shown that he received authorization from the Eleventh Circuit to file a second or successive habeas petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); Gilreath v. State Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 273 F.3d 932, 933 (11th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. The CLERK is directed to CLOSE this case and to send Mr. Crayton a copy of the Eleventh Circuit’s form for second or successive habeas corpus petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on June 1, 2023. litho, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-2-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Crayton v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Pinellas County), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crayton-v-secretary-department-of-corrections-pinellas-county-flmd-2023.