Thompson v. Superintendent et al

Filing 19

ORDER directing Clerk not to authorize service. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kaymani D West on 9/25/2012. (mcot, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Yolanda Thompson, Petitioner, vs. Superintendent, Leath Institution; State of SC, Correctional Respondent. _____________________________________ ) C/A No. 5:12-1952-GRA-KDW ) ) ) ) ) ORDER ) ) ) ) ) This is an action seeking habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is a prisoner. Therefore, in the event that a limitations issue arises, Petitioner shall have the benefit of the holding in Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988) (prisoner’s pleading was filed at the moment of delivery to prison authorities for forwarding to District Court). Under Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) of the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, pretrial proceedings in this action have been referred to the assigned United States Magistrate Judge. By Order dated August 21, 2012, ECF No. 9, Petitioner was given a specific time frame in which to bring this case into proper form, and was directed to submit Petitioner’s Answers to the Court’s Special Interrogatories, ECF No. 13. Petitioner has substantially complied with the court’s Order and this case is now in proper form. PAYMENT OF THE FILING FEE: Petitioner has submitted a copy of her inmate trust fund account withdrawal request, indicating that she has authorized the South Carolina Department of Corrections to withdraw the $5 habeas filing fee from Petitioner’s account and to issue a $5 check to the Clerk of Court for payment of the filing fee. See ECF No. 12-2. TO THE CLERK OF COURT: The Clerk of Court shall not serve the § 2254 Petition upon Respondent because the Petition is subject to dismissal. IT IS SO ORDERED. September 25, 2012 Florence, South Carolina Kaymani D. West United States Magistrate 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?