IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION

CLINTON JAMES PEARSON, JR., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 2:25-CV-1014-WKW ) [WO] ELLEN BROOKS, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER Plaintiff Clinton James Pearson, Jr., a state inmate proceeding pro se, has filed a complaint under

. (Doc. # 1.) In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges “kidnapping – conspiracy to de[fraud] [and] attempted murder,” stating that he “won a case against the state.” (Doc. # 1 at 2, 3.) He also alleges that he has served more time than he should have. (See Doc. # 1 at 5.) As relief, Plaintiff requests that the court “[d]rop all charges and release [him] as soon as possible.” (Doc. # 1 at 4.) Because Plaintiff is challenging the fact or duration of his sentence pursuant to a state-court judgment, his complaint is properly characterized as a petition for writ of habeas corpus under

. See Preiser v. Rodriguez,

, 498–500 (1973); see also Pickett v. Wise,

, 905 (11th Cir. 2021) (“[W]hen a state prisoner is challenging the fact or duration of his incarceration, and he seeks a determination that he is entitled to either immediate release or a speedier release from prison, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus.”).

In compliance with Castro v. United States,

, 382–83 (2003), Plaintiff is ADVISED of the court’s intent to recharacterize his complaint (Doc. # 1) as a petition for writ of habeas corpus under

. Plaintiff is

CAUTIONED that this recharacterization subjects his § 2254 petition (and any subsequent § 2254 petition) to the procedural limitations for § 2254 petitions. Specifically, Plaintiff is CAUTIONED that his § 2254 petition (and any subsequent § 2254 petition) is subject to the one-year limitations period and the successive-

petition bar applicable to § 2254 petitions.1 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff is ORDERED to inform the court, on or before January 20, 2026, whether he wishes to

(1) Proceed before this court under

on the claims in his petition (Doc. # 1); (2) Amend his petition to assert any additional claims challenging the fact or duration of his confinement under

; or

(3) Withdraw his petition.

1 “A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application [for habeas corpus relief pursuant to

].”

(d)(1). Furthermore, “[b]efore a second or successive application [for habeas corpus relief pursuant to

] is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application.” § 2244(b)(3)(A). Plaintiff is CAUTIONED that his failure to file a timely response in compliance with this Order will result in dismissal of this action without further

notice. DONE this 30th day of December, 2025. /s/ W. Keith Watkins UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE