Robinson v. Jackson - Second Habeas Corpus Petition Dismissed

Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

April 13, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

John Bernard Robinson v. SCDC et al Warden Jackson

District Court, D. South Carolina

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 1:25-cv-12678

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (8)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

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

John Bernard Robinson, ) Case No. 1:25-cv-12678-DCC
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) ORDER
)
SCDC et al Warden Jackson, )
)
Respondent. )
________________________________ )

Petitioner, proceeding pro se, is seeking habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2),
(D.S.C.), this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges for
pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On October 6, 2025,
the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the Petition be dismissed
without requiring Respondent to file a return. ECF No. 6. The Magistrate Judge advised
Petitioner of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the
serious consequences if he failed to do so. Petitioner filed objections to the Report and
a motion to present a question of law regarding 2254 application. ECF Nos. 8, 11.
APPLICABLE LAW
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The
recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final
determination remains with the Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The
Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report of the
Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The Court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or
recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b).

The Court will review the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See
Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating
that “in 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.” (citation omitted)).

ANALYSIS
The Magistrate Judge recommends summary dismissal of the instant Petition
because it is a second and successive § 2254 action. The Report sets forth in detail the
relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and this Court incorporates those facts
and standards without recitation. Because Petitioner filed objections, the Court’s review
has been de novo.

To be considered successive, the second habeas petition must be the second
attack of the same conviction and the first habeas petition must have been finally
adjudicated on the merits. See In re Williams, 444 F.3d 233, 236 (4th Cir. 2006). “[A]
dismissal of a [§ 2254] petition as untimely renders a subsequent petition successive.”
Henderson v. Bazzle, No. 9:08-cv-0978-MBS-GCK, 2008 WL 1908535, at *3 (D.S.C. Apr.

29, 2008). Under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, “an
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). “The
prospective applicant must file in the court of appeals a motion for leave to file a second
or successive habeas application in the district court.” Felker v. Turpin, [518 U.S. 651,

657](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/118058/felker-v-turpin/#657) (1996) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(3)(A)). “A three-judge panel has 30 days to
determine whether ‘the application makes a prima facie showing that the application
satisfies the requirements of’ § 2244(b).” Id. (quoting § 2244(b)(3)(c)).
Petitioner’s prior § 2254 petition addressing the same state court conviction was
filed on July 29, 2009, and was denied on September 15, 2010. Robinson v. Padula, C/A

No. 1:09-cv-01977-JMC. Accordingly, Petitioner’s instant Petition is uncontrovertibly
second or successive under § 2244(b), given the fact it was filed after the Court ruled on
his first § 2254 action. Therefore, Petitioner was required to obtain leave from the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit prior to filing this action. § 2244(b)(3)(A).
In his objections, Petitioner states that he has requested leave from the Fourth Circuit
and is awaiting a response. ECF No. 8. In his motion filed thereafter, Petitioner reports

that his request has been denied. ECF No. 11. Because the Fourth Circuit denied his
request, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider his Petition. See United States v.
Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 205–06 (4th Cir. 2003).
Petitioner’s remaining statements in his motion appear to be an attempt to
differentiate this action from a successive § 2254. This is uncontrovertibly a second attack

on the same conviction that has been previously ruled upon. Accordingly, the motion is
denied.
After considering the record in this case, the applicable law, and the Report of the
Magistrate Judge, the Court agrees with the Report’s recommendation. The Petition is
DISMISSED without prejudice to Petitioner’s right to seek authorization from the Fourth

Circuit Court of Appeals to file a successive petition, and without requiring Respondent to
file an answer or return. Petitioner’s motion to present a question of law regarding 2254
application [11] is DENIED.
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
“The district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a

final order adverse to the applicant.” Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254
Cases. A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(2). When the district court denies
relief on the merits, a petitioner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable
jurists would find that the court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or
wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, [537 U.S.

322](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/122258/miller-el-v-cockrell/), 336–38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the
prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and
that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529
U.S. at 484–85. In this case, the Court concludes that Petitioner has failed to make the
requisite showing of “the denial of a constitutional right.”
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr.
United States District Judge
April 13, 2026
Spartanburg, South Carolina