Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_06-cv-00065/USCOURTS-almd-2_06-cv-00065-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

CURTIS DRAYTON, )

)

Petitioner, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 2:06cv65-MHT

) (WO) 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Respondent. )

ORDER

It is ORDERED that petitioner Curtis Drayton’s

objection (Doc. No. 2) is overruled.

It is further ORDERED that this cause is referred

back to the United States Magistrate Judge for further

appropriate proceedings.

Petitioner Curtis Drayton objects to the court’s

order in a criminal action United States v. Drayton, no.

2:94cr62-MHT (Doc. No. 1876), treating his Rule 35(a) &

Rule 36 motion to correct sentence (Doc. No. 1874) as a

§ 2255 motion and having it filed in a separate, new

civil action, Drayton v. United States (Drayton II), no.

Case 2:06-cv-00065-MHT-CSC Document 3 Filed 03/08/06 Page 1 of 2
2:06cv65-MHT. Drayton’s current motion is essentially

the same motion he filed earlier in his criminal case on

September 8, 2004 (Doc. No. 1797) which this court

similarly construed as a § 2255 motion in a separate, new

civil action, Drayton v. United States (Drayton I),

2:04cv846-MHT. In Drayton I, Drayton similarly

complained about his motion being treated as a § 2255

motion. He appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of

Appeals and, in Drayton I (Doc. No. 16), the appellate

court ruled that this court correctly construed his

motion as a § 2255 motion.

DONE, this the 8th day of March, 2006.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00065-MHT-CSC Document 3 Filed 03/08/06 Page 2 of 2