Reeder v. Thomas et al (INMATE 3)

Filing 10

ORDER that Petitioner's 9 Objections are OVERRULED. The instant action is DISMISSED without prejudice, for want of prosecution. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 4/17/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist) (dmn, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
MICHAEL SCOTT REEDER, # 232010,
Petitioner,
v.
KIM THOMAS, et al.,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 2:13cv171-WHA
(WO)

ORDER
On March 14, 2013, Petitioner, a state inmate, submitted a document to this court
styled as “Plaintiff’s Notice of Intent to Commence Federal Complaint Against Unlawful
Confinement.” Doc. No. 1. In that document, Petitioner indicated his intention to initiate
an action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the constitutionality of his conviction and
sentence imposed by the Circuit Court of Lowndes County, Alabama.

Petitioner’s

submission was docketed as a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2254, and on March 25, 2013, the Magistrate Judge entered an order advising Petitioner that
if he wished to proceed in this action, he should file an amended § 2254 petition on or before
April 24, 2013, using the proper form for filing such petition and setting forth every ground
on which he claims he is entitled to federal habeas relief. Doc. No. 4.
Also on March 14, 2013, Petitioner filed a document styled as a “Notice of Intent to
Commence Complaint of Unlawful Confinement and Pleadings for Leave of Court to Grant
Pre-Action Filings.” Doc. No. 2. The Magistrate Judge denied that motion to the extent

Petitioner sought leave of court to grant pre-action filings. Doc. No. 5. In addition,
Petitioner filed a document styled as “Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Imposing Deadline to File
Petition Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.” Doc. No. 3. That motion was also denied by the
Magistrate Judge. Doc. No. 6.
On April 4, 2013 (Doc. No. 9), Petitioner filed a motion containing objections to the
court’s docketing of his “Notice of Intent to Commence Federal Complaint Against
Unlawful Confinement” as a § 2254 petition and to the Magistrate Judge’s order directing
him to file an amended § 2254 petition on or before April 24, 2013, if he wished to proceed
in this action. Petitioner adamantly maintains that he has not yet initiated habeas corpus
proceedings and that he does not wish any of his pleadings to be construed as a petition for
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Id. In addition, he objects to the
Magistrate Judge’s orders denying his “Notice of Intent to Commence Complaint of
Unlawful Confinement and Pleadings for Leave of Court to Grant Pre-Action Filings” and
his “Motion for Order Imposing Deadline to File Petition Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.”
Id.
Under the circumstances, and because this court lacks authority to entertain
“pre-action filings” of the sort submitted by Petitioner prior to the filing of a habeas corpus
petition, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1.

Petitioner’s objections (Doc. No. 9) are OVERRULED.

2

2.

The instant action is DISMISSED without prejudice, for want
of prosecution.

Done this 17th day of April, 2013.

/s/ W. Harold Albritton
W. HAROLD ALBRITTON
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3