REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

LEO I. BRISBOIS, Magistrate Judge.

This case is before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge on Petitioner's self-styled application for a writ of habeas corpus, brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The case has been referred to this Court for report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rule 72.1. For the reasons discussed below, it is recommended that the case be summarily dismissed pursuant to Rule 4 of The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases In The United States District Courts.1

I. BACKGROUND

Petitioner is an inmate at the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota, ("FMC-Rochester"). His current petition does not explain the reason for his confinement. However, the recordkeeping system maintained by the federal judiciary known as "Case Management/Electronic Case Filing," ("CM/ECF"), shows that Petitioner has brought numerous prior actions in other federal district courts. In one recent case filed in the Western District of Missouri, Foy v. Sanders, No. 13-3464-CW-W-JFM-P, the Court entered an order, (Order dated January 21, 2014; [Docket No. 3]), which sheds some light on Petitioner's current confinement. That order indicates that Petitioner is confined pursuant to a civil commitment order entered on September 12, 2007, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri in Case No. 05-3590-CV-S-RED. Petitioner was civilly committed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4246, which authorizes indefinite confinement, for the purpose of providing mental health care and treatment, for a prison inmate who suffers from a mental disease or defect that causes him to be dangerous to himself or others.

The order entered in No. 3464-CW-W-JFM-P further indicates (1) that Petitioner has received yearly psychological evaluations in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 4247(e), and (2) that Petitioner has filed numerous prior habeas corpus petitions challenging his continuing confinement pursuant to § 4246. The Missouri district court also pointed out in No. 3464-CW-W-JFM-P that the rulings in Petitioner's other recent cases show that he is still suffering from a mental disease or defect that requires him to be confined in an institution that can provide him with psychiatric medical care.

As noted above, Petitioner is currently being confined (and presumably treated) at FMC-Rochester. His present habeas corpus petition appears to challenge his ongoing confinement pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4246. However, the Court finds that this action must be summarily dismissed, because Petitioner has not presented any colorable claim for relief.

II. DISCUSSION

Petitioner's current habeas corpus petition is virtually incomprehensible. Even after diligently attempting to parse the intended meaning of Petitioner's submissions, (including the attachments to the petition, and a separate ten-page supplement, [Docket No. 3]), the Court cannot discern any possible grounds for granting Petitioner a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner has not provided an intelligible explanation of the factual basis for his petition, nor has he offered any decipherable legal rationale for ordering his release.

Because Petitioner has not presented any arguable factual or legal grounds to grant him any relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (or otherwise), the Court will recommend that this action be summarily dismissed pursuant to Rule 4 of the Governing Rules.

Having determined that Petitioner's habeas corpus petition must be summarily dismissed, the Court will further recommend that his pending application to proceed in forma pauperis, (Docket No. 2), be denied. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); see also, Kruger v. Erickson, 77 F.3d 1071, 1074, n. 3 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (IFP application should be denied where habeas petition cannot be entertained).

III. RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records and proceedings herein,

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Petitioner's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis,(Docket No. 2), be DENIED; and

2. This action be summarily DISMISSED.