Gilliam v. Jones et al, No. 2:2014cv00765 - Document 17 (N.D. Ala. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Abdul K Kallon on 10/17/2016. (YMB)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Gilliam v. Jones et al Doc. 17 FILED 2016 Oct-17 PM 02:31 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION STEVEN LYNNDALE GILLIAM, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) ) KAYLA JONES, Warden, et al., ) ) Respondents. ) Case Action Number: 2:14-cv-00765-AKK-TMP MEMORANDUM OPINION The above-styled action for habeas corpus relief was filed by the petitioner, Steven Lynndale Gilliam, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Doc. 1. The court appointed Katherine Luker to represent the petitioner, doc. 10, and a scheduling conference was held on July 26, 2016, before U.S. Magistrate Judge T. Michael Putnam, doc. 13. It was discovered at the scheduling conference that the petitioner had been released from Easterling Correctional Facility, but had not provided a forwarding address. A follow-up conference was held on August 15, 2016, doc. 14, at which time Petitioner’s attorney informed the court that she had been unable to locate him. On August 16, 2016, the magistrate judge issued an Order to Show Cause, doc. 15, allowing the petitioner 30 days to show why his petition should not be Dockets.Justia.com dismissed for want of prosecution or for mootness. The petitioner was located, and on September 14, 2016, the petitioner, through his attorney, filed a response to the Order to Show Cause, advising the court that he no longer wishes to pursue his habeas petition and that he has no objection to the dismissal of the action. Doc. 16. Accordingly, this action for habeas corpus relief, filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, is due to be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. An Order of Final Judgment shall be entered contemporaneously herewith. DONE the 17th day of October, 2016. _________________________________ ABDUL K. KALLON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2
]]>
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.
