Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Randolph Codner, aka Jah Rastafari Malchizdek, Petitioner v. Florida

USCA11 Case: 21-13280

Date Filed: 03/30/2022

Page: 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-13280-E

RANDOLPH CODNER,

State of Jah,

a.k.a. Jah Rastafari Malchizdek,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 21-13603-E

RANDOLPH CODNER,

State of Jah,

a.k.a. Jah Rastafari Malchizdek,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

Before: ROSENBAUM and GRANT, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

USCA11 Case: 21-13280

Date Filed: 03/30/2022

Page: 2 of 2

Randolph Codner, as known as “Jah Rastapari Malchizdek,” has filed a “Notice of

Appeal,” which has been construed as a motion for reconsideration, pursuant to 11th Cir. R. 221(c) and 27-2, of this Court’s February 8, 2022, order consolidating his appeals and denying a

certificate of appealability and miscellaneous relief in his underlying 28 U.S.C. § 2254 proceeding.

Upon review, Codner’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED because he has offered no new

evidence or arguments of merit to warrant relief.

2

USCA11 Case: 21-13280

Date Filed: 02/08/2022

Page: 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-13280-E

RANDOLPH CODNER,

State of Jah,

a.k.a. Jah Rastafari Malchizdek,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 21-13603-E

RANDOLPH CODNER,

State of Jah,

a.k.a. Jah Rastafari Malchizdek,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

ORDER:

Randolph Codner, also known as “Jah Rastapari Malchizdek,” seeks a certificate of

appealability (“COA”) to appeal the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and “Notice to Correct

USCA11 Case: 21-13280

Date Filed: 02/08/2022

Page: 2 of 3

Form.” Additionally, in Appeal No. 21-13208, Codner has filed a “Motion for Liberty of

Counsel,” requesting that he be given access to legal resources and materials to litigate his appeal,

and a “Motion to File Additional Information,” requesting that he be allowed to “show additional

evidence” in support of his motion for liberty of counsel and his habeas petition. He also has filed

a motion for injunctive relief in Appeal No. 21-13603, requesting that this Court order the

respondent to stop providing him with medical treatment, and a motion for a hearing on his motion

for injunctive relief. Because his appeals in Appeal Nos. 21-13280 and 21-13603 involve a

common question of law or fact, they are sua sponte consolidated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a).

To obtain a COA, a movant must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Where the district court dismissed a habeas petition

on procedural grounds, the movant must show that reasonable jurists would debate (1) whether the

motion states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the district court

was correct in its procedural ruling. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

Here, the district court properly dismissed Codner’s § 2254 petition because his claims

were barred by the Younger abstention doctrine. The record indicates that the 2016 state criminal

charges against Codner are still pending, and the state court continues to evaluate his competency.

See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.210(a) (providing that criminal proceedings shall not be proceeded against

a person who is mentally incompetent); Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.213(a) (providing that, after five years

following a determination that a defendant is incompetent to proceed when charged with a felony,

if the defendant remains incompetent to proceed and there is no substantial probability that he will

become competent in the foreseeable future, the charges should be dismissed without prejudice).

Codner remains subject to the criminal charges and is being periodically evaluated to determine

whether he is competent to reinstate his criminal proceedings. Accordingly, the Younger doctrine

2

USCA11 Case: 21-13280

Date Filed: 02/08/2022

Page: 3 of 3

barred the federal district court from intervening in the ongoing state proceedings. See Younger v.

Harris, 401 U.S. 37,43-45 (1971).

None of Younger's three exceptions applied. First, Codner has not alleged any facts

showing that his prosecution was brought with no intention of securing a conviction or to harass

him. See id. at 48-49. Second, Codner has not shown that he will suffer any great or immediate

injury, the prevention of which requires the intervention of the federal courts. See id. at 49.

Finally, although Codner disputes the state court’s orders finding him incompetent and committing

him to the custody of the Florida Department of Children and Families, he did not show, and the

record does not reflect, that the state courts were an inadequate forum to raise his claims.

Therefore, none of the exceptions to Younger abstention apply to Codner’s claims, and the district

court properly denied his habeas petition.

Further, reasonable jurists would not debate the district court’s denial of Codner’s notice

to correct form, as Codner used the names “Randolph Codner” and “Jah Rastapari Malchizdek,”

or variations thereof, throughout the district court proceedings. Additionally, this Court has no

authority to grant Codner the injunctive relief that he requests. Finally, the arguments in his

“Motion to File Additional Information,” and the attached exhibits, have no bearing on whether

the district court properly denied his habeas petition. Accordingly, Codner’s motion for a COA,

his motion for injunctive relief, his “Motion for Liberty of Counsel,” and his “Motion to File

Additional Information” are DENIED. Consequently, his motion for a hearing is DENIED AS

MOOT.

/si Robin S. Rosenbaum

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

3

Case 0:20-cv-61831-AHS Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/02/2021 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO: 20-61831-CV-SINGHAL

RANDOLPH CODNER a/k/a

Jah a/k/a Jah Rastafari Maichizdek,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

ORDER DENYING

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

I.

Introduction

Randolph Codner, pro se, presently confined at the Broward County Jail, North

Broward Bureau, has filed this Petition and Amended Petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging aspects of his ongoing criminal proceedings

before the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Case NO.16008725CF10A. (DE

[1], [10], [11]). Dismissal of the proceedings without prejudice is appropriate pursuant to

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).

II.

Factual and Procedural History

The following pertinent facts are derived from the state trial court’s online docket,

which the Court will make part of the instant record by separate order to the Clerk of

Court. On July 27,2016, the state charged Petitioner with written threats to kill or do bodily

injury (Count 1), extortion (Count 2), corruption by threat (Count 3), illegal use of two-way

Case 0:20-cv-61831-AHS Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/02/2021 Page 2 of 4

communication device (Count 4), and making an obscene or harassing telephone call

(Count 5). (State Trial Court Docket, Case No. 16008725CF10A).

The case has yet to proceed to trial. See generally id. On July 12, 2021, the state

trial court issued an order finding Petitioner incompetent and committing him to the

custody of the Florida Department of Children and Families. Id. This order is the last entry

in the state criminal docket. Id.

On September 9, 2020, Petitioner filed the instant petition. (DE [1]). On February

16, 2021, Petitioner filed a motion for leave to amend along with an Amended Petition.

(DE [10], [11]). On July 15, 2021, Petitioner filed a motion to add the Broward County

Sherriff as a respondent to these proceedings. (DE [17]).

III.

Discussion

A. Abstention

In Younger v. Harris, the United States Supreme Court held that “federal courts

should not stay or enjoin pending state court proceedings except under special

circumstances.” See, e.g., Turner v. Broward Sheriff's Office, 542 Fed. Appx. 764, 766

(11th Cir. 2013) (discussing Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)). This abstention

doctrine applies when (1) the challenged proceedings are ongoing state judicial

proceedings; (2) the proceedings implicate important state interests; and (3) there is an

adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise those constitutional concerns.

Adams v. State of Fla., 185 Fed. Appx. 816 (11th Cir. 2006) (relying upon 31 Foster

Children v. Bush, 329 F.3d 1255, 1274 (11th Cir. 2003)).

Although Younger v. Harris was decided in the § 1983 context, the Eleventh Circuit

has applied the abstention doctrine in the § 2241 context. See Hughes v. Attorney Gen.

2

Case 0:20-cv-61831-AHS Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/02/2021 Page 3 of 4

of Fla., 377 F.3d 1258, 1275 (11th Cir. 2004) (concluding the district court should have

abstained pursuant to Younger with respect to the pre-trial habeas petition). This Court

has also applied Younger v. Harris in the § 2241 context. See, e.g., Simon v. United

States, 2018 WL 6446591, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 10, 2018) (adopting a magistrate judge’s

Report and Recommendation for dismissal pursuant to Younger v. Harris, or in the

alternative, for failure to exhaust state remedies, due to ongoing state criminal

proceedings).

“[U]nless state law clearly bars the interposition of the specific constitutional

claims[,]” federal courts should abstain whenever “vital state interests are involved!.]”

Middlesex Cty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Assn., 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982)

(quoting Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 426 (1979)). See also Hawaii Hous. Auth. v. Midkiff,

463 U.S. 1323, 1325 (1983) (stating the same principle and adding that an extraordinary

circumstance may also qualify as a basis not to apply Younger3s abstention doctrine).

These rules are consistent with the “recognition that national government functions best

if state institutions are unfettered in performing their separate functions in their separate

ways.” Hawaii Hous. Auth., 463 U.S. at 1325 (relying upon Younger, 401 U.S. at 44).

Here, Younger is implicated because Petitioner is in state custody pursuant to

pending state charges. See Younger, 401 U.S. at 47-48 (showing the abstention doctrine

was established in the context of a challenge presented during pending criminal

proceedings). Petitioner’s criminal proceedings in Broward County were initiated before

he filed a complaint in this Court. See For Your Eyes Alone, Inc. v. City of Columbus, Ga.,

281 F.3d 1209, 1218 (11th Cir. 2002) (concluding Younger did not apply when an

individual’s arrest occurred after he initiated the federal action).

3

Case 0:20-cv-61831-AHS Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/02/2021 Page 4 of 4

Because the ongoing state criminal proceedings involve important state interests,

and Petitioner has an adequate opportunity to raise his constitutional challenges in

Florida’s state courts, Younger-abstention is appropriate in this case. See Turner, 542

Fed. Appx. 764, 767 (11th Cir. 2013) (relying upon Middlesex, 457 U.S. at 432); Hale v.

Pate, 694 Fed. Appx. 682 (11th Cir. 2017) (“Because the revocation proceeding was not

final at the time Hale filed his complaint in the district court, Younger abstention still

applies."). There is nothing “extraordinary” about this case to warrant an exception. See

Hawaii Hous. Auth., 463 U.S. at 1325.

IV.

Conclusion

For the reasons discussed above, the Court concludes that dismissal is

appropriate on the basis of Younger abstention. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this petition (DE [1]) is DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case and DENY AS MOOT all pending

motions.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 30th day of

July 2021.

cc:

Randolph Codner, PRO SE

502100532

Broward County Jail-NBB

North Broward Bureau

Inmate Mail/Parcels

Post Office Box 407037

Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33340

\

RAAG SINGHAfcr

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Noticing 2254 SAG Broward and North

Email: CrimAppWPB@MyFloridaLegal.com

4

Additional material

from this filing is

available in the

Clerk's Office.