Martin v. Bear
| Decision Date | 28 January 2016 |
| Docket Number | Case No. CIV-15-682-D |
| Parties | DENNIS MARTIN, Petitioner, v. WARDEN BEAR, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Oklahoma |
Petitioner, a state prisoner appearing pro se, brings this action seeking habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [Doc. No. 1]. United States District Judge Timothy D. DeGiusti referred this matter to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for initial proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C). [Doc. No. 4]. The undersigned has preliminarily reviewed the Petition pursuant to Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.1 For the following reasons, it is recommended the Petition be dismissed.
Petitioner, who is incarcerated in the custody of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections (ODOC) and is currently confined at the Joseph Harp Correctional Center (JHCC) in Lexington, Oklahoma, filed this action June 23, 2015. [Doc. No. 1, at p. 1].2 Petitioner initiated this action using the form entitled "Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241" butamended that heading by hand, adding: "and 29 U.S. § 794, sec. 504; 42 U.S.C. § 12101-235, titles (2)(3)(5)." Id. at p. 1.3
Petitioner lists the following grounds in support of his claim he is being held in violation of the federal Constitution: (1) "suspension of habeas-corpus, due-process and access to courts, by all Okla. Dist. Courts, Okla. State Supreme and Criminal Appeals Courts, as discrimination against Petitioner, because of his disabilities"; (2) "detention in state prison, after commutation / discharge of sentence, and ex-post-facto enhancement of punishment"; (3) "discrimination against Petitioner because of his disabilities"; and (4) "declaratory judgment of rights, statis when state courts refuse to comply with or enforce their own Dist. Court rules, statutes, constitution, in post convictions, habeas-corpus, ex-post-facto parole board rules, laws, composition that voids opportunity for consideration, and refusal to comply with sentencing courts orders of commitment." Id. at pp. 6-7. After each of these grounds, Petitioner checked the "yes" box indicating he had presented that particular ground "in all appeals that were available to [him]." Id. at pp. 6-7. For relief, Petitioner requests an injunction "compelling state courts to comply with, and enforce" a state court procedural rule and certain Oklahoma statutes. Petitioner also requests "habeas corpus release from Respondent's custody"; declaratory judgment on all issues; class-action certification; and the appointment of counsel. Id. at p. 8.
When prompted by the form petition to "[p]rovide more information about the decision or action [he is] challenging," Petitioner listed "Cleveland County Dist. Court; Oklahoma State Supreme Court; Okla. State Criminal Appeals Court; and J.H.C.C. State Prison at Lexington, Okla." as the "[n]ame or location of the agency or court." Id. Petitioner stated the case numberof the action he is challenging to be "WH-14-___ and ___" and provided the same information as the "[d]ate of the decision or action" he is challenging. Id. Petitioner further indicated he had appealed the challenged decision but the appeal was denied. Id.
Petitioner attached only one exhibit to his Petition: a copy of the hand-written "Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 1334" he filed in Cleveland County District Court in Case No. WH-14-0008 on October 9, 2014 (the "2014 Application").4 [Doc. No. 1-1, at pp. 1-3]. Petitioner neglected to attach any exhibits showing whether and how Cleveland County District Court ruled on his 2014 Application, or whether he appealed any such ruling to the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma (OCCA). Publicly-available court records show Cleveland County District Court denied Petitioner's 2014 Application on March 16, 2015, citing his failure both to exhaust administrative remedies and to bring the action in the District Court of Sequoyah County, the situs of Petitioner's original judgment and sentence for first degree murder.5 The Cleveland County District Court surmised that even if Petitioner had exhausted his administrative remedies and pursued the action in the proper court, his underlying claims would be without merit. Id.
In an Order dated September 22, 2015 [Doc. No. 9], this Court granted Petitioner's Motion to Supplement [Doc. No. 8], and add as an exhibit to his Petition a copy of OCCA's August 7, 2015 order regarding a different habeas application, Case No. WH-2015-24, which Petitioner filed in Cleveland County District Court on June 2, 2015 (the "2015 Application"). [Doc. No. 8-1]. In that order, OCCA declined to accept either appellate or original jurisdictionover Petitioner's self-styled "Petition in Error and Appeal Brief," by which Petitioner sought review of Cleveland County District Court's dismissal of his 2015 Application for failure "to timely comply with previous orders that had directed him to supply costs or a proper pauper's affidavit" in support thereof. Id. Petitioner neglected to add as exhibits his underlying 2015 Application or the order of Cleveland County District Court dismissing it.
In light of this incomplete information, the Court ordered Petitioner to show cause why it should not dismiss his Petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies and to identify the sentence he purports to challenge, as well as for his attempt to pursue § 1983 and § 2254 claims in an action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [Doc. No. 10]. In his timely Response to Show Cause Order [Doc. No. 11], Petitioner begins:
This is not a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 or 42 U.S.C. § 1983 matter. Petitioner cannot read or write, and state prisons refuse to provide him access to a law libary or legal assistance because of his disabilities, that is a federal law issue under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a 2241 matter.
[Doc. No. 11, at p. 1]. Further declaring "[a] judgment and sentence has no revelence in a 2241 case," Petitioner attached three exhibits to his Response to Show Cause Order: (1) a notice of intent to appeal Cleveland County District Court's denial of his 2014 Application in Case No. WH-14-0008; (2) a summary judgment motion he filed in support of his 2014 Application in that same case; and (3) Cleveland County District Court's order denying his 2015 Application in Case No. WH-2015-24. Id. at 11-1, -2, -3.
Rule 4 requires this Court to review habeas petitions promptly and "summarily dismiss [a] petition without ordering a responsive pleading," Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 656 (2005), "[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is notentitled to relief in the district court . . . ." Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. The reviewing court also may deny an application for a writ of habeas corpus on the merits, "notwithstanding the failure of the applicant to exhaust the remedies available in the courts of the State." See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2). In accordance with Rule 4, the undersigned has examined the Petition and recommends its dismissal on filing because Petitioner's claims fail on the merits.6
The writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2241, "shall not extend to a prisoner unless" the prisoner "is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). "In this circuit, a prisoner who challenges the fact or duration of his confinement and seeks immediate release or a shortened period of confinement must do so through an application for habeas corpus." Palma-Salazar v. Davis, 677 F.3d 1031, 1035 (10th Cir. 2012) (citing McIntosh v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 115 F.3d 809, 812 (10th Cir. 1997)). "In contrast, a prisoner who challenges the conditions of his confinement must do so through a civil rights action." Id.
Federal courts do not grant habeas relief for errors of state law. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67 (1991). But a state court's failure to follow its own rules warrants habeas relief if such failure also constituted a violation of due process guaranteed by the federal Constitution. See Hicks v. Oklahoma, 447 U.S. 343, 346 (1980). This requires a showing that "the deprivation occasioned by the state's failure to follow its own law [is] 'arbitrary in the constitutional sense';that is, it must shock the judicial conscience." Aycox v. Lytle, 196 F.3d 1174, 1180 (10th Cir. 1999) (citing Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 129-30 (1992)).
"A pro se litigant's pleadings are to be construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers," so that any potentially valid claim can be fairly decided on its merits. Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). Nevertheless, summary dismissal is appropriate where the facts alleged are "vague" or "conclusory," or are "palpably incredible" or "patently frivolous or false" when compared to the record before the district court. Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75-76 (1977) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Herman v. Claudy, 350 U.S. 116 (1956)); see Wilcox v. Aleman, 3 F. App'x 920, 922 (10th Cir. 2001).
The well-pled facts summarized below, accepted as true, do not state any claim for federal habeas relief. As an initial matter, the "petition contains so many unintelligible and conclusory allegations and statements" that it is nearly "impossible to ascertain the exact errors of fact or law raised for the court's disposition." Bakalov v. Utah, 4 F. App'x 654, 657 (10th Cir. 2001). Indeed, it is difficult to discern whether Petitioner "seeks habeas relief under § 2254 or § 2241, or if [the pleading] is actually intended to initiate a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various state...
To continue reading
Request your trial