James R. Rose v. Warden Early

• Court: District Court, D. South Carolina
• Decided: September 26, 2025
• Docket: 0:25-cv-11918
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

James R. Rose, ) C/A No. 0:25-11918-JDA-PJG ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ) Warden Early, ) ) Respondent. ) )

Petitioner James R. Rose, a self-represented state prisoner, filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter is before the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c) (D.S.C.). Having reviewed the Petition in accordance with applicable law, the court concludes that it should be summarily dismissed without prejudice and without requiring the respondent to file a return. I. Factual and Procedural Background Petitioner is an inmate in the Perry Correctional Institution in the South Carolina Department of Corrections. In December 2013, Petitioner was convicted in the Charleston County Court of General Sessions of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in this court challenging his 2013 conviction. The court granted summary judgment to the respondent in that case and dismissed the petition. See C/A No. 0:20-2921-RBH. Petitioner again challenged his 2013 conviction in this court in a § 2254 petition in 2022, but the court summarily dismissed that petition as successive under 28 U.S.C. § 2444. See C/A No. 0:22-2050-RBH. Petitioner filed a third § 2254 petition in 2023, which the court also summarily dismissed as successive under 28 U.S.C. § 2444. See C/A No. 0:23-1022-RBH. Petitioner now brings the instant § 2254 petition, arguing that he was denied due process because the evidence presented was not sufficient to support his conviction; the prosecution improperly misled the trial court; and that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Petitioner asks the court for an evidentiary hearing and to grant him immediate release from

custody. Petitioner states that he “is seeking authorization from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to file a second petition for federal habeas relief.” (ECF No. 1 at 14.) However, he does not indicate that he has received such authorization. II. Discussion A. Standard of Review Under established local procedure in this judicial district, a careful review has been made of the pro se petition filed in this case pursuant to the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. § 2254; the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), Pub. L. No. 104- 132, 110 Stat. 1214; and in light of the following precedents: Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324-25 (1989); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972);

Nasim v. Warden, Md. House of Corr., 64 F.3d 951 (4th Cir. 1995) (en banc); Todd v. Baskerville, 712 F.2d 70 (4th Cir. 1983). This court is required to liberally construe pro se petitions, which are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); King v. Rubenstein, 825 F.3d 206, 214 (4th Cir. 2016). Nonetheless, the requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts which set forth a claim cognizable in a federal district court. See Weller v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 684 (2009) (outlining pleading requirements under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for “all civil actions”). B. Analysis The instant case should be summarily dismissed as a successive § 2254 petition. “[A]n individual may not file a second or successive § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus or § 2255 motion to vacate sentence without first receiving permission to do so from the appropriate circuit

court of appeals.” In re Vial, 115 F.3d 1192, 1194 (4th Cir. 1997); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). The issue of successiveness of a habeas petition may be raised by the court sua sponte. See Rodriguez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 694, 697 n.1 (5th Cir. 1997); Davis v. McFadden, C/A No. 0:14- 2662-RMG, 2014 WL 5305931, at *4 (D.S.C. Oct. 15, 2014) (adopting and incorporating Report and Recommendation). Thus, Petitioner must obtain a Pre-Filing Authorization from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit before this court may consider a second or successive § 2254 petition. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 530 (2005) (“[B]efore the district court may accept a successive petition for filing, the court of appeals must determine that it presents a claim not previously raised that is sufficient to meet § 2244(b)(2)’s new-rule or actual- innocence provisions.”); see also In re Williams, 330 F.3d 277 (4th Cir. 2003). As Petitioner

provides no indication that he received such permission from the Fourth Circuit prior to filing this Petition, it is subject to summary dismissal. Petitioner can obtain the forms necessary to seek authorization to file a second or successive habeas petition from the Clerk’s Office of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. III. Conclusion Accordingly, the court recommends that the instant Petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed without prejudice and without requiring the Respondent to file a return.

September 26, 2025 Paige J. Ae Columbia, South Carolina UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE The Petitioner is directed to the important information in the attached “Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation. ”

Page 4 of 5

Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation

The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. “[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.’ ” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).

Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:

Robin L. Blume, Clerk United States District Court 901 Richland Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201

Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).