Al-Ameen v. Woodall (INMATE 1)
ORDER directing that: (1) plt be granted an extension of time from 7/10/2012o and including 7/30/12 to file documents, as further set out in order; (2) if the plf does not have these documents in his possession as previously stated in his complaint, he shall on or before July 30, 2012 file a sworn statement or affidavit indicating the lack of these documents and explaining why he previously informed the court these documents were in his possession, as further set out in order; (3) granting the defendant an extension to and including 8/15/2012 to file her written report and answer. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 7/6/12. (djy, )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
MUHAMMAD AL-AMEEN, #110046,
a.k.a., TERRY D. RIVERS,
CARLA H. WOODALL,
CIVIL ACTION NO.1:12-CV-188-TMH
Upon review of the response filed by the plaintiff on July 6, 2012 (Doc. No. 19), and for good
cause, it is
1. The plaintiff be GRANTED an extension from July 10, 2012 to and including July 30,
2012 to file (i) the envelope he received from defendant Woodall when she returned his Rule 32
petition to him, (ii) any correspondence he received from defendant Woodall regarding his attempt(s)
to file a Rule 32 petition, (iii) the original Rule 32 petition mailed to the Circuit Court of Houston
County, Alabama as the plaintiff indicates the document filed with this court is not the original filed
with the state court, and (iv) all letters sent to the defendant and responses received from the
defendant regarding his attempts to file a Rule 32 petition. The plaintiff is advised if he is
unable to procure copies of these documents he should submit the originals of these
documents to the court and the court will make requisite copies for use in this case.
2. If the plaintiff does not have these documents in his possession as previously stated
in his complaint, he shall on or before July 30, 2012 file a sworn statement or affidavit indicating
the lack of these documents and explaining why he previously informed the court these
documents were in his possession.
The documents referenced in this order are necessary to the plaintiff proceeding on the
claims presented in this cause of action. The plaintiff is therefore cautioned if he fails to file
a response to this order the Magistrate Judge will recommend that this case be dismissed.1
3. The defendant be GRANTED an extension to and including August 15, 2012 to
file her written report and answer.
Done this 6th day of July, 2012.
/s/ Charles S. Coody
CHARLES S. COODY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The plaintiff is advised that his claim of mental incompetency can be raised at any time and is not subject to
procedural bars. Medina v. Singletary, 59 F.3d 1095, 1111 (11th Cir.), cert. denied 517 U.S. 1247, 116 S.Ct. 2505
(1996) (Although petitioner did not raise, on direct appeal or in his initial Rule 32 petition, “his substantive competency
claim ... is not subject to procedural default [or time limitations] and must be considered on the merits.”); Glass v. State,
912 So.2d 285, 288 (Ala.Cr.App. 2004) (substantive due process claim of mental incompetency not subject to
procedural bars.). Thus, if he seeks to proceed on this claim, he should file his Rule 32 petition in the Circuit Court of
Houston County, Alabama.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?