Means v. State of Alabama, No. 4:2012cv04049 - Document 18 (N.D. Ala. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge William M Acker, Jr on 6/18/14. (SAC )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
FILED 2014 Jun-18 PM 02:09 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA MIDDLE DIVISION SCHEAREAN JEAN MEANS, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF ALABAMA, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 4:12-cv-04049-WMA-TMP MEMORANDUM OPINION The magistrate judge filed his Report and Recommendation (doc. 16) in the abovestyled cause on May 29, 2014, recommending that the ยง 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the constitutional validity of Petitioner s conviction be dismissed without prejudice because the court is without jurisdiction to adjudicate Petitioner s claims. Schearean Jean Means ( Petitioner ) filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation. Instead, on June 8, 2014, Petitioner filed a motion requesting a copy of the Respondent s Answer.1 (Doc. 17). 1 Petitioner s motion (doc. 17) refers to the Respondent s Answer filed in and by the Court on October 7, 2013. The Respondent s answer was filed on September 24, 2013, (doc. 10) and the court s Order Regarding Summary Disposition was filed on October 7, 2013. (Doc. 11). Although it is difficult for the court to discern which document the Petitioner is requesting, it appears from the docket summary that she received both documents. Petitioner was able to respond to the Answer, at the behest of the court s Order Regarding Summary Disposition, on November 11, 2013 - following a Motion for Extension of Time, which the court granted. Without having seen both documents, it is unlikely that Petitioner would have been able to respond to the Answer, or would have known to ask for an extension of time in which to file her response. Accordingly, Petitioner s motion (doc. 17) is due to be and hereby is DENIED and DISMISSED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate the motion. Having now carefully reviewed and considered de novo all materials in the court file relevant to the case, the court finds that the report is due to be ADOPTED and the recommendation ACCEPTED. A corresponding order shall be entered contemporaneously herewith. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of June, 2014. _____________________________ WILLIAM M. ACKER, JR. 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.
