TIMMS v. JOHNS, 5:08-HC-2160-BO. (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20120529787
Visitors: 11
Filed: May 25, 2012
Latest Update: May 25, 2012
Summary: ORDER TERRENCE W. BOYLE, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on Respondent's Motion to Strike Pleading [DE 81]. Petitioner, Mr. Timms, through counsel filed on May 17, 2012, a Superceding Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Request for Evidentiary Hearing [DE 80]. Respondent has moved to strike Mr. Timm's pleading as no notice of appearance has been filed by counsel in this matter and as this case has been closed. In its opinion in this matter entered December 6, 2010, the Cou
Summary: ORDER TERRENCE W. BOYLE, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on Respondent's Motion to Strike Pleading [DE 81]. Petitioner, Mr. Timms, through counsel filed on May 17, 2012, a Superceding Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Request for Evidentiary Hearing [DE 80]. Respondent has moved to strike Mr. Timm's pleading as no notice of appearance has been filed by counsel in this matter and as this case has been closed. In its opinion in this matter entered December 6, 2010, the Cour..
More
ORDER
TERRENCE W. BOYLE, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Respondent's Motion to Strike Pleading [DE 81]. Petitioner, Mr. Timms, through counsel filed on May 17, 2012, a Superceding Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Request for Evidentiary Hearing [DE 80]. Respondent has moved to strike Mr. Timm's pleading as no notice of appearance has been filed by counsel in this matter and as this case has been closed.
In its opinion in this matter entered December 6, 2010, the Court of Appeals held that the proper procedure for Mr. Timms to challenge his certification and detention under § 4248 is in the commitment action and through pursuit of appellate review of any decision in that case by which he is aggrieved. The Court of Appeals further instructed that the habeas petition be dismissed without prejudice.
Mr. Timms' commitment action is still pending before the Court, and a decision on the merits of Mr. Timms' commitment under § 4248 is forthcoming. Accordingly, as Mr. Timms' has not yet exhausted the alternative remedies available for review of his detention in the commitment action, this Court has no jurisdiction over Mr. Timms' habeas petition. The government's Motion to Strike Pleading is therefore GRANTED.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
