Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_12-cv-01124/USCOURTS-almd-3_12-cv-01124-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

MARK CEDRIC BASS, SR., #279 120, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-CV-1124-TMH

) [WO]

GARY HETZEL, WARDEN III, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

It is

ORDERED that Petitioner is GRANTED leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

The instant application for habeas corpus relief was originally filed in the United

States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on November 1, 2012. That court

1

directed transfer of the petition to this court by order entered December 6, 2012.

The court has carefully reviewed the instant petition for habeas corpus relief. From

that review the undersigned finds that it represents a duplicate of a habeas corpus application

filed by Petitioner in this court on November 1, 2012. See Bass v. Hetzel, Civil Action No.

3:12-CV-979-TMH. The court, therefore, deems it appropriate to dismiss the captioned

 Although the present petition was stamped "filed" by the transferor court on November 8, 2012, 1

the petition was signed by Petitioner on November 1, 2012. A pro se inmate’s petition is deemed filed

the date it is delivered to prison officials for mailing. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 271-272 (1988);

Adams v. United States, 173 F.3d 1339, 1340-41 (11 Cir. 1999); Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 780 th

(11 Cir. 1993). “Absent evidence to the contrary in the form of prison logs or other records, [this court]

th

must assume that [the instant petition] was delivered to prison authorities the day [Bass] signed it . . .”

Washington v. United States, 243 F.3d 1299, 1301 (11 Cir. 2001). th

Case 3:12-cv-01124-TMH-TFM Document 5 Filed 01/10/13 Page 1 of 2
action as it simply represents a duplication of Petitioner’s prior case filing.

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that the instant

petition for habeas corpus relief be dismissed.

It is further

ORDERED that on or before January 24, 2013 Petitioner may file an objection to the

Recommendation. Any objection filed must specifically identify the findings in the

Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which Petitioner objects. Frivolous, conclusive or

general objections will not be considered by the District Court.

Failure to file a written objection to the proposed findings and recommendations in

the Magistrate Judge's reportshall bar Petitioner from a de novo determination by the District

Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual

findings in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain

error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5 Cir. 1982). See Stein

th

v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of

th

Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 Cir. 1981) (en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the

th

decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on

September 30, 1981.

Done this 10 day of January 2013.

th

/s/Terry F. Moorer

TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 3:12-cv-01124-TMH-TFM Document 5 Filed 01/10/13 Page 2 of 2