Filed: Jun. 07, 2013
Latest Update: Jun. 07, 2013
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FRANKLIN L. NOEL, 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
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FRANKLIN L. NOEL, 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 ..
More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
FRANKLIN L. NOEL, 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 at FMC-Rochester. However, Petitioner is a frequent litigator in this District, and the history of his confinement is well documented in previous court decisions. Those decisions show that in 1990, federal criminal charges were brought against Petitioner in the United States District Court for the Virgin Islands. He was charged with assault, being a felon in possession of a firearm, and other offenses. Petitioner never went to trial on those charges, because he was found to be incompetent. In 1991, he was committed to the custody of the United States Attorney "for care and treatment under Title 18 U.S.C. § 4246." Mendez v. Bureau of Prisons, Civil No. 08-4971 (D.Minn. 2009), 2009 WL 3856925 at *1. In 1996, Petitioner was conditionally released from custody, but a federal court judge later ordered that he be taken back into custody, because he had violated the conditions of his release. Id. at *2.2
Petitioner has been confined at FMC-Rochester for about the past seven years. As noted above, he is presently seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. However, the Court finds that this action must be summarily dismissed, because Petitioner has not presented any colorable claim for relief.
II. DISCUSSION
Most of Petitioner's current habeas corpus petition is incomprehensible. He has described his grounds for relief, ("GROUNDS FOR THIS PETITION RELIEF"), as follows:
"This petition REQUEST for a JURY TRIAL is grounded on the OBSTRUCTION/HINDERING of Mendez, communication with the courts and other governmental agencies that could have an interest in Mendez, case problem such as the Virgin Islands Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) local (or) Territorial agents in charge. See Amendement [sic] Article VI, Bill of Rights for Criminal Proceedings and the authority of the 2241 writ is found for violating these U.S. Constitutional Bill of Rights at note (3) of the writs written enactment.
Mendez, standard of defense will be under federal law of Criminal Conspiracy Title 18 USC § 241 and under Civil Conspiracy liability Title 42 USC § 1985 (3) authorities of federal laws."
(Petition, [Docket No. 1], pp. 4-5.) The rest of the current petition is just as inscrutable as the passage quoted above.
After carefully considering all of the allegations presented in the current petition, the Court cannot discern any possible grounds for granting Petitioner a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner simply has not presented any cogent factual or legal grounds that would allow the Court to grant him any relief under § 2241 (or otherwise). The Court will therefore 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.
