Thomason v. Marshall (INMATE3), No. 2:2019cv00160 - Document 30 (M.D. Ala. 2020)
Court Description: OPINION. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 3/31/2020. (cnw, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Thomason v. Marshall (INMATE3) Doc. 30 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION STEVEN CLAYTON THOMASON, Plaintiff, v. STEVEN T. MARSHALL (Attorney General of the State of Alabama), Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19cv160-MHT (WO) OPINION Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, petitioner filed this lawsuit seeking habeas relief. The court denied the petition for lack of jurisdiction because petitioner was not in custody when he filed the petition. Order (doc. no. 22). See Petitioner then filed what he called a “Motion for Relief Under Rule 60(b)” (doc. no. 27). This lawsuit is now before the court on the recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge that petitioner’s motion be dismissed as a successive § 2254 petition filed without the required appellate court authorization, and that, to the extent it attacks Dockets.Justia.com some defect in the integrity of the prior habeas proceedings, the motion be denied. the court are recommendation. review of petitioner’s the petitioner’s After record, objections an should Also before objections to the de novo concludes that independent the court be federal and overruled and the magistrate judge’s recommendation adopted. An appropriate judgment will be entered. DONE, this the 31st day of March, 2020. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
