Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-00006/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-00006-0/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

DATRIST McCALL, )

)

Petitioner, )

 )

v. ) Civil Action No. 2:12cv6-WKW

) (WO)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Respondent. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter is before the court pursuant to the petitioner’s pro se motion to vacate,

set aside, or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which was filed on December 27,

2011. Upon consideration of the § 2255 motion, this court finds that the motion should be

1

denied without prejudice because this court lacks jurisdiction.

As explained in United States v. Khoury, 901 F.2d 975, 976 (11 Cir. 1990), a district th

court lacks jurisdiction over a petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion during the pendency of

the petitioner’s direct appeal. In the present case, the petitioner filed a notice of appeal on

2

Although the § 2255 motion is date stamped “received” in this court on January 4, 2012, it was 1

signed by the petitioner on December 27, 2011. A pro se inmate’s petition is deemed filed on the

date it is delivered to prison officials for mailing. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 271-72 (1988);

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

780 (11 Cir. 1993). “Absent evidence to the contrary in the form of prison logs or other records, th

[this court] must assume that [the petitioner’s § 2255 motion] was delivered to prison authorities the

day [he] signed it.” Washington v. United States, 243 F.3d 1299, 1301 (11 Cir. 2001). th

In Khoury, the defendant filed a § 2255 motion after he filed a notice of appeal. The district 2

(continued...)

Case 2:12-cv-00006-WKW-SRW Document 2 Filed 01/12/12 Page 1 of 3
August 2, 2011. See Criminal Case No. 2:10cr19-WKW, Doc. No. 160. The petitioner’s

appeal has been assigned USCA Case No. 11-13526-I. Id., Doc. No. 164. On the date on

which this Recommendation is being entered, the petitioner’s appeal remains pending in the

Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. During the pendency of the petitioner’s direct appeal,

this court lacks jurisdiction to consider his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and

accordingly, the motion should be denied without prejudice.

The petitioner may re-file his § 2255 motion when jurisdiction is vested in the district

court.

CONCLUSION

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

petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion be DENIED without prejudice. 

It is further

ORDERED that the parties shall file any objections to this Recommendation on or

before January 26, 2012. A party must specifically identify the findings in the

Recommendation to which objection is made; frivolous, conclusive, or general objections

will not be considered. Failure to file written objections to the Magistrate Judge’s proposed

 (...continued) 2

court denied the motion on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction because jurisdiction had

vested in the court of appeals for the pendency of the appeal. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed because

“[t]he general rule is that a defendant may not seek collateral relief while his direct appeal is

pending.” Jones v. United States, 453 F.2d 351, 352 (5 Cir. 1972) (per curiam); Welsh v. United th

States, 404 F.2d 333 (5 Cir. 1968) (”A motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 will not th

be entertained during the pendency of a direct appeal, inasmuch as the disposition of the appeal may

render the motion moot.”).

2

Case 2:12-cv-00006-WKW-SRW Document 2 Filed 01/12/12 Page 2 of 3
findings and recommendations shall bar a party froma de novo determination by the District

Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from attacking on

appeal factual findings 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 th

Stein 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). th

DONE, this 12 day of January, 2012.

th

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 2:12-cv-00006-WKW-SRW Document 2 Filed 01/12/12 Page 3 of 3