Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_12-cv-00188/USCOURTS-almd-1_12-cv-00188-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MUHAMMAD AL-AMEEN, #110046, )

a.k.a., TERRY D. RIVERS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.1:12-CV-188-TMH

)

CARLA H. WOODALL, )

)

Defendant. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

This case is before the court on a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 amended complaint filed by

Muhammad Al-Ameen ["Al-Ameen"], a state inmate, in which he challenges actions of

Carla H. Woodall ["Woodall"], the Circuit Clerk of Houston County, Alabama.

Specifically, Al-Ameen asserts that Woodall failed to file Rule 32 petitions he submitted

to the trial court in which he sought to attack convictions imposed upon him by the Circuit

Court of Houston County in 2006. Al-Ameen alleges that with respect to a petition

1

submitted in April of 2009 Woodall informed him that "as of 4-23-09 her office had no

From a search of Alabama cases, it appears that Al-Ameen did not appeal his 2006 convictions. If no

1

appeal of the convictions occurred, Al-Ameen's 2006 convictions became final forty-two (42) days after imposition

of sentence on November 3, 2006. Rule 4(a)(1), Ala.R.App.P. Under these circumstances, Al-Ameen had one year

from that date within which to file a Rule 32 petition in the Circuit Court of Houston County with respect to all claims

for relief except those related to his substantive mental competency. Rule 32.2(c), Ala.R.Cr.P.; Medina v. Singletary,

59 F.3d 1095, 1111 (11 Cir.), cert. denied 517 U.S. 1247, 116 S.Ct. 2505 (1996) (“[S]ubstantive competency claim

th

... is not subject to procedural default [or time limitations] and must be considered on the merits.”); Glass v. State,

912 So.2d 285, 288 (Ala.Cr.App. 2004) (substantive due process claim of mental incompetency not subject to

procedural bars). 

Case 1:12-cv-00188-TMH-CSC Document 41 Filed 04/16/13 Page 1 of 6
knowledge of the Rule 32, and .... [advised him that any petition] must [contain the] correct

case [number] and name in which conviction occurred, not the alias, the name on your birth

certificate." Complaint - Doc. No. 1 at 3. In response to Woodall's correspondence, AlAmeen "wrote her office and informed her that in (1979) in the Houston Co. Probate Court

[he obtained] a lawful name change .... from Terry D. Rivers to Muhammad Al-Ameen ...,

and on 9/11/06 [was] tried and convicted as such, and on 11/3/06 [was] sentence as

such...." Id. After a subsequent attempt to file a Rule 32, Al-Ameen alleges Woodall

returned the petition to him on June 2, 2009 "stating, we do not have a case under this

name, and the case number provided is not the same on file, correct & resubmit.... [S]he

states the Rule 32 must be listed in the name on clerk's file." Id. Al-Ameen's next

correspondence is sent to the clerk's office in September of 2011. On September 8, 2011,

Woodall "informs [Al-Ameen] that no record found of [his] petition [being] 'filed' in

[clerk's] office." Id.

With respect to the above described actions, Al-Ameen requests that his Rule 32

petition be "placed into the hands of the [trial] judge" and seeks monetary compensation

for the costs of postage associated with his prior attempts to file a Rule 32 petition.

Complaint - Doc. No. 1 at 4.

2

Due to the conclusory nature of Al-Ameen's initial claims and his repeated references to documentary 2

evidence in his possession and upon motions to compel filed by the defendant, the court entered orders requiring that

Al-Ameen file copies of relevant documents he repeatedly stated were within his possession. Order of April 30, 2012

- Doc. No. 14; Order of June 26, 2012 - Doc. No. 18; Order of July 6, 2012 - Doc. No. 20; Order of August 30, 2012 -

Doc. No. 24; Order of February 25, 2013 - Doc. No. 30. These orders also provided Al-Ameen the opportunity to

2

Case 1:12-cv-00188-TMH-CSC Document 41 Filed 04/16/13 Page 2 of 6
In his amendment, Al-Ameen assertsthat he filed a Rule 32 petition with the Circuit

Court of Houston County in November of 2012 "and til this date I have no! word as to the

state of myRule 32" despite two attemptsto obtain information regarding the petition from

the defendant. Amendment to the Complaint - Doc. No. 32 at 3. Al-Ameen requests that

this court order Woodall to inform him of the status of his pending Rule 32 petition. Id.

at 4.

Upon review of the complaint, as amended, and in accordance with well settled

federal law, the court concludesthat this case is due to be dismissed in accordance with the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii) and (iii).

3

II. DISCUSSION

A. The Request for Monetary Compensation

It is clear from a review of the complaint that any claims presented by Al-Ameen

against Carla Woodall relate to actions this defendant undertook pursuant to authority

granted her by either state law or the Circuit Court of Houston County, Alabama. The

defendant is therefore absolutely immune from monetary damages when sued under 42

retract his prior statements if he no longer possessed the documents and informed Al-Ameen that the court would

make copies of the documents for him free of cost if he did not have the financial means to procure the requisite

copies. An exhaustive review of the file in this case establishes that Al-Ameen failed to properly file these

documents.

The court granted Al-Ameen leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Court Doc. No. 3. A prisoner who

3

is allowed to proceed in forma pauperis will have his complaintscreened under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) which

requiresthis court to dismiss a prisoner’s civil action prior to service of processif it determinesthat the complaint

is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary damages from

a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).

3

Case 1:12-cv-00188-TMH-CSC Document 41 Filed 04/16/13 Page 3 of 6
U.S.C. § 1983. Williams v. Wood, 612 F.2d 982, 985 (5 Cir. 1980); Scott v. Dixon, 720

th

F.2d 1542 (11 Cir. 1983). In light of the foregoing, the court concludes that Al-Ameen's th

request for monetary compensation from Carla Woodall is subject to dismissal upon

application of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii).

B. Relief Related to Rule 32 Petition

Al-Ameen requests that this court require the Circuit Court of Houston County to

accept his Rule 32 petition as properly filed, Complaint - Doc. No. 1 at 4, and seeks

issuance of an order directing the defendant "to inform [him of] the state of [the Rule 32]

petition" submitted to the trial court in November of 2012. Amendment to the Complaint -

Doc. No. 32 at 4.

To the extent Al-Ameen seeksrelief which would require a specific course of action

by the Circuit Court of Houston County or its clerk, the law is well settled that this court

lacks jurisdiction to grant such relief. A federal court has no jurisdiction or right to grant

relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 with respect to challenges to state court actions in cases

arising out of state judicial proceedings even if those challenges allege that the court's

action was unconstitutional or in violation of federal law. See Datz v. Kilgore, 51 F.3d 252

(1995); Berman v. Florida Board of Bar Examiners, 794 F.2d 1529 (11th Cir. 1986);

District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). Thisfederal civil

action cannot be used to compel a state court or its clerk to take a particular course of

4

Case 1:12-cv-00188-TMH-CSC Document 41 Filed 04/16/13 Page 4 of 6
action. See Datz v. Kilgore,supra.; see also Rolleston v. Eldridge, 848 F.2d 163 (11th Cir.

1988). Dismissal of the plaintiff's claims for relief related to his current Rule 32 petition

and its status before the state court is therefore appropriate pursuant to the provisions of

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). See Clark v. State of Georgia Pardons and Paroles Board,

915 F.2d 636 (11th Cir. 1990); see also Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (claims

"based on an indisputably meritless legal theory" are subject to dismissal as frivolous).

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it isthe RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case

be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii)

and (iii). It is further

ORDERED that on or before April 30, 2013, the parties may file objections to the

Recommendation. Any objection must specifically identify the findings in the

Recommendation objected to. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be

considered by the District Court. The parties are advised that this Recommendation is not

a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable.

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings in the Recommendation

shall bar the party 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

5

Case 1:12-cv-00188-TMH-CSC Document 41 Filed 04/16/13 Page 5 of 6
injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5 Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds

th

Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661

th

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

th

former Fifth Circuit issued prior to September 30, 1981.

Done this 16th day of April, 2013.

/s/Charles S. Coody

CHARLES S. COODY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6

Case 1:12-cv-00188-TMH-CSC Document 41 Filed 04/16/13 Page 6 of 6