Carey v. Attorney General of State of Alabama, The
MEMORANDUM OPINION as more fully set out in order. Signed by Judge C Lynwood Smith, Jr on 04/11/14. (SPT )
2014 Apr-11 AM 10:14
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
CARLOS DEWAYNE CAREY,
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF ALABAMA,
Case No: 2:13-cv-2258-CLS-JEO
Carlos Dewayne Carey (“Carey”), pro se, initiated this action by filing a form
for use by federal prisoners to move to vacate, set aside, or correct a federal sentence
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (See Doc. 1). However, because Carey states that he is
incarcerated at the Bullock Correctional Facility in Union Springs, Alabama, and he
appears to seek relief with respect to a sentence imposed by an Alabama state court,
the Clerk classified the action for intake purposes as one seeking a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On January 3, 2014, the magistrate judge
entered a report pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) recommending that this action be
dismissed without prejudice for want of jurisdiction. (Doc. 6). On January 23, 2014,
the clerk docketed a letter from Carey in which he states that he does not object to the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. (Doc. 8). Carey does request,
however, that the court advise him about whom he might contact to furnish
information on the alleged criminal activities of other individuals in an effort to
obtain a reduction of his state sentence. (Doc. 8). He has also filed a motion in which
he makes a “request for [this] court to recommend a[n] investigation of [his] claims
and [the] validity of [the] information and to report these claims and [the] availability
of information to law enforcement.” (Doc. 11).
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court
file, including the findings and recommendation of the magistrate judge, the court is
of the opinion that the magistrate judge’s report is due to be, and it hereby is,
ADOPTED, and his recommendation is ACCEPTED. Accordingly, this action is due
to be DISMISSED without prejudice for want of jurisdiction.
Turning to Carey’s requests for assistance regarding whom he might contact
to furnish information on the alleged criminal activities of other individuals and for
the court to recommend to some agency that it conduct an investigation into Carey’s
information, it will suffice to say that it is neither this court’s duty nor its proper place
to provide such advice or to make such recommendations.
A separate final judgment will be entered.
DONE this 11th day of April, 2014.
United States District Judge
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?