-MTP Taite v. Pearson, No. 5:2010cv00154 - Document 6 (S.D. Miss. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER denying 5 Motion that the court give Petitioner's petition for habeas relief "high priority in the court's calendar." A Final Judgment 4 was entered on December 8, 2010, dismissing the instant civil action prior to the Motion 5 being filed. Therefore, this Court is without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Petitioner's Motion 5 . Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on December 10, 2010. (lda)

Download PDF
-MTP Taite v. Pearson Doc. 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI WESTERN DIVISION DARRELL AMOS TAITE, #05831-003 VERSUS PETITIONER CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:10-cv-154-DCB-MTP BRUCE PEARSON, Warden RESPONDENT ORDER This matter is before the Court on Petitioner's Motion for Order [5] filed December 8, 2010. In his Motion [5], Petitioner requests that this Court give his petition for habeas relief "high priority in the court's calendar." Having reviewed the Motion [5] as well as the record, this Court finds that the Motion [5] will be denied for the following reason. A Final Judgment [4] was entered on December 8, 2010, dismissing the instant civil action prior to the Motion [5] being filed. Therefore, this Court is without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Petitioner's Motion [5]. See United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir. 1994) (holding that a motion filed in a closed case is to be considered "a meaningless, unauthorized motion"). Even if the Motion [5] was filed prior to the Memorandum Opinion [3] and Final Judgment [4] on December 8, 2010, it is clear that the Motion [5] is moot and would be denied because a decision has been entered in the instant civil action. Therefore, as a initial matter this Court finds that there is no jurisdictional basis for Petitioner filing the instant Motion [5] and moreover, a decision concerning the instant habeas petition Dockets.Justia.com has been rendered. Id. Consequently, the Motion [5] is denied. See Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion [5] is denied. SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 10th day of December, 2010. s/David Bramlette 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.