A Georgia prisoner's repeated bail requests during his habeas case are denied.

Record source: CourtListener

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION DERRICK BERNARD JACKSON, : : Petitioner, : : V. : : NO. 5:26-cv-00215-MTT-ALS STATE OF GEORGIA, et al., : : Respondents. : : ORDER Petitioner Derrick Bernard Jackson, a prisoner in the Irwin County Detention Center in Ocilla, Georgia, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his May 7, 2025, conviction in the Baldwin County Superior Court. ECF No. 2. Petitioner also filed two motions seeking his release on bail while this action is pending. ECF Nos. 4 & 5. The Magistrate Judge found that Petitioner did not meet the requirements for bail pending consideration of a habeas petition and therefore denied those motions. ECF No. 7 at 2-3. The Magistrate Judge also denied Petitioner’s motion to proceed in this action in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and ordered him to either pay the $5.00 filing fee for this case or file an updated motion to proceed IFP. Thereafter, Petitioner filed an objection to the denial, a motion to alter or amend the judgment, and a motion for an evidentiary hearing challenging the Magistrate Judge’s decision. ECF Nos. 8-10. He also paid the filing fee, but his payment was not docketed at that time. This Court considered Petitioner’s filings, overruled his objections, and denied the motions. ECF No. 11 at 2-5. Because the docket did not reflect that the filing fee had been paid, this Court also ordered Petitioner to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed based on his failure to pay the fee or file a new IFP motion. Id. at 1-2. Petitioner has now filed a supplemental motion for bail pending final determination (ECF No. 12), a motion to alter the judgment (ECF No. 13), a second supplemental motion for bail (ECF No. 15), a second motion to alter or amend the judgment (ECF No. 20), and an emergency motion for ruling on his post-judgment motion (ECF No. 23). In each of these motions, Petitioner continues to argue that he is entitled to be released on bail while this case is pending. Petitioner has also filed a notice of interlocutory appeal (ECF No. 14) and a motion for leave to proceed IFP (ECF No. 21), which appears to be seeking leave to proceed IFP in his appeal.1 I. Motions Relating to the Denial of Release on Bail2 A. Supplemental Motion for Bail As noted above, the Magistrate Judge denied Petitioner release on bail, Petitioner 1The Eleventh Circuit has found that one of Petitioner’s motions (ECF No. 20) is properly construed as a timely tolling motion. Jackson v. Georgia, Appeal No. 26-13235 (11th Cir. Oct. 5, 2026), ECF No. 5. Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that jurisdiction remains with this Court and suspended all appeal deadlines pending this Court’s resolution of the motion. Id. 2Since the outset of this case, Petitioner has filed ten separate motions or supplements to motions relating to his contention that he is entitled to bail pending the resolution of this habeas petition. Petitioner should be aware that these motions are bordering on an abuse of the judicial process. In proceeding with this case, Petitioner should present all arguments regarding a motion in the motion initially, rather than filing piecemeal or repetitive arguments relating to the same request for relief. If Petitioner believes there is a basis for doing so, he may object or file a motion for reconsideration consistent with this Court’s Local Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but continuing to file repetitive or vexatious motions may subject Petitioner to sanctions. 2 objected to the denial of bail, and this Court overruled his objections. ECF Nos. 7-11. The first of Petitioner’s pending motions was docketed the day after this Court entered the order overruling Petitioner’s objections. ECF No. 12. If this Court applies the prison- mailbox rule to this motion, it was effectively filed when Petitioner mailed it, which was necessarily before the order overruling Petitioner’s objections was entered. Thus, the Court construes this motion as a supplemental objection to the motion denying bail. Petitioner dated this motion August 10, 2026. Id. at 4. Accepting that as the date he filed it, the motion was filed more than fourteen days after the Magistrate Judge entered the order denying him bail, and thus, it is untimely as an objection to that order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (providing that an objection to a magistrate judge’s order resolving a non-dispositive pretrial order must be filed within fourteen days after being served with a copy of such order). Regardless, nothing in the motion provides a basis for altering the Magistrate Judge’s order. This Court reviews a magistrate judge’s order to which objections have been filed to determine whether the order is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). In the motion, Petitioner sets out the timeline for the post- conviction relief that he sought in the trial court. ECF No. 12 at 1-3. He then states that the timeline shows that an evidentiary hearing is necessary to determine whether the trial court’s delays have been justified and issue an order granting bail if they were not. Id. at 4. Petitioner cites Dixon v. Florida, 388 F.2d 424 (5th Cir. 1968), in support of his motion. 3 In Dixon, the district court dismissed a petitioner’s federal habeas corpus petition for failure to exhaust his state court remedies. 388 F.2d at 425. The petitioner had filed a post-conviction motion in the sentencing court, but that court had not yet ruled on the motion. Id. Recognizing that the sentencing court had delayed resolution of the petitioner’s post-conviction motion for nineteen months, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that it was unclear whether the petitioner’s state remedies could be considered adequate and effective. Id. at 426. The Court held that the district court had erred by dismissing the petition without holding an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the state court’s delay was justified. Id. Further, the Court instructed that, if the delay was unjustified, “the petition should be heard on its merits.” Id. Dixon concerned whether the petitioner had effectively exhausted his state court remedies. It has no bearing on whether Petitioner is entitled to release on bail pending resolution of his habeas corpus petition, and thus, it would not have changed this Court’s decision to overrule Petitioner’s objections. Accordingly, to the extent that it is seeking bail pending resolution of the habeas petition, this motion (ECF No. 12) is DENIED.3 B. Motion to Alter Judgment As with the f

Official opinion source