The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHEASTERN DIVISION
JOHN ALLEN LINGERFELT, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Case No. 5:21-cv-00647-MHH-
) HNJ
DEBORAH TONEY, et al., )
)
Respondents. )
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On May 7, 2021, petitioner John Allen Lingerfelt filed this petition for a writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He asks the Court to “order the
Alabama Board/Bureau of Pardons and Paroles to schedule” his “first legal and
lawful parole consideration hearing on its next available docket” and to order the
Board not to act arbitrarily when considering his request for parole. (Doc. 1, p. 16).
Mr. Lingerfelt is serving consecutive 10-year sentences on two convictions for
attempted sexual abuse of a child younger than 12 years old. (Doc. 1, pp. 27-28;
Doc. 5, p. 1).1 As Mr. Lingerfelt was informed when he pleaded guilty, under
1 Mr. Lingerfelt was charged with four counts of attempted sexual abuse of a child under 12 years
of age. (Doc. 1, p. 27).
1
Alabama law, the crime is a Class C felony. (Doc. 1, p. 28). Mr. Lingerfelt was
sentenced on October 30, 2012 and admitted to the Alabama Department of
Corrections that same day. (Doc. 1, pp. 28-29). Mr. Lingerfelt first applied for
parole in 2016.
On December 30, 2021, the Magistrate Judge entered a report in which he
recommended that the Court dismiss Mr. Lingerfelt’s petition as time-barred and
moot. (Doc. 11). The Magistrate Judge also recommended that the Court deny Mr.
Lingerfelt’s motion to amend and supplement the pleadings, (Doc. 7), except as to
the state record concerning Lingerfelt v. the Board, et al., No. CV-2019-317, (see
Doc. 8, pp. 9-19), and deny Mr. Lingerfelt’s motion to expand the record and set an
evidentiary hearing, (Doc. 9). (Doc. 11). On January 20, 2022, Mr. Lingerfelt filed
objections to the report and recommendations. (Doc. 12).
A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). A
district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the
[magistrate judge’s] report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to
which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A district court’s obligation to
“‘make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed
findings or recommendations to which objection is made,’” 447 U.S. at 673 (quoting
2
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)), requires a district judge to “‘give fresh consideration to those
issues to which specific objection has been made by a party,’” 447 U.S. at 675
(quoting House Report No. 94-1609, p. 3 (1976)). United States v. Raddatz, 447
U.S. 667 (1980) (emphasis in Raddatz).
Mr. Lingerfelt argues that he was not legally eligible for parole in 2016 when
the Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles first denied his request for parole. (Doc.
5-1). Essentially, Mr. Lingerfelt contends that his 2016 proceeding before the Board
was void because the Alabama Department of Corrections had incorrectly classified
his felonies as Class B, a designation which makes a prisoner ineligible for parole.
(Doc. 12, pp. 2, 3 (“[Mr. Lingerfelt] had to be legally eligible for parole before he
could be considered for parole.”); see also Doc. 1, p. 28 (reflecting incorrect Class
B designation)).
Regardless of Mr. Lingerfelt’s legal eligibility for parole under Alabama law
due to the incorrect designation, it is undisputed the Board considered and denied
Mr. Lingerfelt’s request for parole in 2016. (Doc. 1, p. 5; Doc. 5, p. 2; Doc. 5-1;
Doc. 12, p. 2). As grounds for denying Mr. Lingerfelt’s parole request, the Board
cited the severity of the offense; negative input from the victim, family of the victim,
and law enforcement; and concern regarding respect for the law. (Doc. 5-1). The
Board reset Mr. Lingerfelt’s application for parole for consideration in August of
3
2020. (Doc. 5-1).
Mr. Lingerfelt contends that he did not learn that his ADOC record reflected
a Class B felony rather than a Class C felony until June 2019. (Doc. 8, p. 4). Mr.
Lingerfelt has not explained how the error came to his attention in 2019.
Nevertheless, Mr. Lingerfelt requested a correction in 2019, and ADOC responded.
Mr. Lingerfelt’s August 2019 amended record reflects two Class C felony
convictions. (Doc. 8, pp. 15, 19).
Because of the Covid-19 pandemic, Mr. Lingerfelt’s second hearing before
the Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles was delayed. (Doc. 5-11, pp. 2-3). The
Board considered Mr. Lingerfelt for parole at a hearing on August 25, 2021. (Doc.
9, p. 5). At the time, the Board had before it Mr. Lingerfelt’s correct Class C felony
designation. (Doc. 8, pp. 15, 19). The Board denied Mr. Lingerfelt’s request
because of the severity of the crime and negative input from stakeholders. (Doc. 9,
p. 5). The Board reset Mr. Lingerfelt’s parole request for August of 2026. (Doc. 9,
p. 5).
As a result of the August 2021 parole hearing, Mr. Lingerfelt’s request for
relief in his habeas petition is moot because he has received the relief he requested;
Mr. Lingerfelt received a parole consideration hearing on the Board’s next available
docket following his May 2021 habeas petition. At the August 2021 hearing, the
4
Board had before it Mr. Lingerfelt’s correct felony designation. (Doc. 1, p. 16; Doc.
5-13, pp. 2-3; Doc. 8, pp. 15, 19). To the extent that Mr. Lingerfelt seeks relief
regarding the Board’s 2021 denial of parole, Mr. Lingerfelt must file a new petition
directed to the 2021 decision.
Having reviewed and considered de novo the materials in the Court’s
electronic docket, the Court accepts the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to
dismiss Mr. Lingerfelt’s petition as moot. By separate order, the Court will dismiss
this action. Mr. Lingerfelt’s motions concerning the record and his request for an
evidentiary hearing also are moot. Consequently, the Court denies the motions and
the request for an evidentiary hearing. (Docs. 7, 9).
This Court may issue a certificate of appealability “only if the applicant has
made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(2). To make such a showing, a “petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable
jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims
debatable or wrong,” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000), or that “the
issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further,”
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (internal quotations omitted). Mr.
Lingerfelt’s habeas petition does not satisfy either standard. Therefore, this Court
will not issue a certificate of appealability. If Mr. Lingerfelt wishes to appeal, he
5
must request a certificate of appealability from the Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals.
DONE and ORDERED this March 25, 2022.
i aalites HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE