1A review of the initial document filed by the petitioner establishes this date as the earliest date the
instant petition could have been presented to prison officials for submission to a federal court. Thus, this
court construes January 4, 2005 as the date of filing. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 271-272 (1988); Adams
v. United States, 173 F.3d 1339, 1340-41 (11th Cir. 1999); Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 780 (11th Cir.
1993); Washington v. United States, 243 F.3d 1299, 1301 (11th Cir. 2001).
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
CLINTON SAMUEL TEASLEY,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:05-CV-588-T
CHERYL PRICE, et al.,
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This cause of action is before the court on a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas
corpus relief filed by Clinton Samuel Teasley [“Teasley”], a state inmate, January 4, 2005.1
In this petition, Teasley challenges convictions for second degree kidnapping and first
degree attempted rape entered against him by the Circuit Court of Coosa County, Alabama
on August 8, 1996.
The records of this court reveal and the petitioner concedes that he filed a previous
habeas petition pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 1996
convictions. See Teasley v. Holt, et al., Civil Action No. 99-A-148-N (M.D. Ala. 2001).
Case 2:05-cv-00588-MHT-SRW Document 14 Filed 06/23/2005 Page 1 of 5
Teasley v. Price et al (Inmate 1)
In this initial habeas action, this court determined that Teasley’s challenges to the
indictment and his claims of trial court error were procedurally defaulted. Teasley v. Holt,
supra, - Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge at 6-9 (adopted as opinion of the court
by Order of August 27, 2001). The court likewise held that Teasley’s challenge to the
constitutionality of his guilty plea entitled him to no relief as this claim had been properly
adjudicated on the merits by th