From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chavez-Tovar v. Atkinson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Jun 28, 2012
C/A No.:1:12-1310-DCN-SVH (D.S.C. Jun. 28, 2012)

Summary

holding that the possibility that a § 2255 motion filed in the sentencing court may be rejected on the merits or ruled to be untimely or successive does not render the § 2255 remedy inadequate or ineffective

Summary of this case from Yepez v. United States

Opinion

C/A No.:1:12-1310-DCN-SVH

06-28-2012

Jose Luis Chavez-Tovar, Petitioner, v. Kenny Atkinson, Warden, FCI-Edgefield, Respondent.


ORDER

This is an action seeking habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner is a prisoner. Therefore, in the event that a limitations issue arises, Petitioner shall have the benefit of the holding in Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988) (prisoner's pleading was filed at the moment of delivery to prison authorities for forwarding to District Court). Under Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), pretrial proceedings in this action have been referred to the assigned United States Magistrate Judge.

Petitioner has requested to proceed without prepaying the filing fee by filing an Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees and Affidavit (Form AO-240) which is construed as a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Based on a review of the motion, Petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. [Entry #2]. TO THE CLERK OF COURT:

The Clerk of Court shall not serve the § 2241petition upon respondent because the petition is subject to dismissal.

The Clerk of Court shall not enter any change of address submitted by Petitioner which directs that mail be sent to a person other than Petitioner unless that person is an attorney admitted to practice before this court who has entered a formal appearance. TO PETITIONER :

Petitioner must place the Civil Action Number (C/A No.) listed above on any document filed in this case. Any future filings in this case must be sent to 901 Richland Street, Columbia, South Carolina 29201. All documents requiring Petitioner's signature shall be signed with Petitioner's full legal name written in Petitioner's own handwriting. Pro se litigants shall not use the "s/typed name" format used in the Electronic Case Filing System. In all future filings with this court, Petitioner is directed to use letter-sized (8½ inches x 11inches) paper only, to write or type text on one side of a sheet of paper only and not to write or type on both sides of any sheet of paper. Petitioner is further instructed not to write to the edge of the paper, but to maintain one inch margins on the top, bottom and sides of each paper submitted.

Petitioner is a pro se litigant. Petitioner's attention is directed to the following important notice:

You are ordered to always keep the Clerk of Court advised in writing (901 Richland Street, Columbia, South Carolina 29201) if your address changes for any reason, so as to assure that orders or other matters that specify deadlines for you to meet will be received by you. If as a result of your failure to comply with this order, you fail to meet a deadline set by this court, your case may be dismissed for violating this order. Therefore, if you have a change of address before this case is ended, you must comply with this order by immediately advising the Clerk of Court in writing of such change of address and providing the court with the docket number of all pending cases you have filed with this court. Your failure to do so will not be excused by the court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

June 28, 2012

Columbia, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges

United States Magistrate Judge


Summaries of

Chavez-Tovar v. Atkinson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Jun 28, 2012
C/A No.:1:12-1310-DCN-SVH (D.S.C. Jun. 28, 2012)

holding that the possibility that a § 2255 motion filed in the sentencing court may be rejected on the merits or ruled to be untimely or successive does not render the § 2255 remedy inadequate or ineffective

Summary of this case from Yepez v. United States

holding that the possibility that a § 2255 motion filed in the sentencing court may be rejected on the merits or ruled to be untimely or successive does not render the § 2255 remedy inadequate or ineffective

Summary of this case from Graves v. United States
Case details for

Chavez-Tovar v. Atkinson

Case Details

Full title:Jose Luis Chavez-Tovar, Petitioner, v. Kenny Atkinson, Warden…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Date published: Jun 28, 2012

Citations

C/A No.:1:12-1310-DCN-SVH (D.S.C. Jun. 28, 2012)

Citing Cases

Yepez v. United States

Accordingly, the In re Jones savings clause test is not satisfied. See Hackett v. Atkinson, C/A No.…

Roberts v. Dobbs

See Chavez-Tovar v. Atkinson, C/A No. 1:12-1310-DCN-SVH, 2012 WL 3028024, at *2-3 (D.S.C. June 28, …