Speight-Bey v. Smith ( 2014 )


Menu:
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
    Morris Speight-Bey, )
    )
    Pemoner’ 3 Case: 1:14-cv-02016
    V, ) Assigned To : Unassigned
    ) Assign. Date: 11/26/2014
    ) Description: Habeas Corpus/2255
    William J. Smith, )
    )
    Respondent. )
    W
    Petitioner, proceeding pro se, is currently incarcerated at the District of Columbia’s
    Central Detention Facility. Petitioner has submitted what he purports to be a petition for a writ
    of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without identifying the basis of his detention. See 28
    U.S.C. § 2242 (habeas application “shall allege the facts concerning the applicant’s commitment
    or detention . . .”). Regardless, the petition is sorely defective. Hence, petitioner’s
    accompanying application to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted and this case will be
    dismissed.
    Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases permits the Court to “apply these
    rules to a habeas corpus petition [under § 2241],” and Rule 12 makes the Federal Rules of Civil
    Procedure applicable to habeas petitions “to the extent that they are not inconsistent with any
    statutory provisions or these rules.” Unlike the minimal pleading requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P.
    8(a), “Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases requires a more detailed
    statement. The habeas rule instructs the petitioner to “specify all the grounds for relief available
    to [him]’ and to ‘state the facts supporting each ground.’ ” Mayle v. Felix, 545 US. 644, 649
    (2005). This “demand that habeas petitioners plead with particularity is to assist the district court
    in determining whether the State should be ordered to ‘show cause why the writ should not be
    granted’ ” or to summarily dismiss the petition. 
    Id. at 656
    (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2243). The
    demand is necessary also because the government, in responding to a show cause order, “must
    ‘address the allegations in the petition.’ ” 
    Id. (quoting Gov’g
    Rule 5(b)).
    Petitioner states that he is “a Moroccan American National whose habitual residence
    status is incorrect.” Pet. at 2. Petitioner seems to take issue with his “United States Birth
    Certificate,” which he contends provides an “artificial description [that] doesn’t identify a human
    being by Nationality . . . .” 
    Id. He “demand[s]
    that the current erroneous false description be
    removed from the Birth Certificate and corrected by an [sic] Moroccan American National
    Nationality immediately.” 
    Id. In his
    introduction, petitioner states that he is applying for a writ
    for the identity of Nationality, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, a coanizable
    [sic] claim violation of the constitution, laws, or treaties . . . a violation of
    the Treaty of Frienship [sic] and Peace between England, Morocco, and
    North America of the United States, Amended and sign[ed] by the two
    Ministers of Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams.
    
    Id. at 1.
    The perplexing grounds for relief are listed as follows: “Ground One: Genocide
    against a Nation of America”; “Ground Two: Admission is unlawful of section 4 a justment [sic]
    of status for displaced Person’s Act of 1948 . . .”; “Ground Three: Title 28 U.S.C.S. § 1605 and
    1602 of American Nationals Laws Violation of the Vienna Convention of the United Nations and
    Title 28 U.S.C.S. § 1332 Diversity of citizenship; Amount in Controversy; cost”; “Ground Four:
    A violation of Amendment 5, and Amendment 13”; “Ground Five: Illegal use of Person
    Solicitation of Proxy by a false Presentment and Bond of Property Contracts using cooperative
    agreements § 6305 . . . .” The supporting facts, such as they are, emphasize petitioner’s “request
    for a correction of [his] nationality,” Compl. at 5, which is not a remedy available in habeas
    proceedings.
    The petition fails to comply with the habeas pleading rules, and it does not otherwise
    provide a basis for habeas relief. See Mayle, 545 US. at 655 (“Notice pleading is not sufficient,
    for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a real possibility of constitutional error.”)
    (quoting Advisory Comm. Note on Habeas Corpus Rule 4) (internal bracket and quotation marks
    omitted). Rather, the petition presents the type of fantastic or delusional scenarios warranting
    dismissal of a case as frivolous. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 US. 319, 325 (1989); Best v. Kelly,
    
    39 F.3d 328
    , 330-31 (DC. Cir. 1994) (a court may dismiss claims that are “essentially
    fictitious”-- for example, where they suggest “bizarre conspiracy theories . . . [or] fantastic
    government manipulations of their will or mind”) (citations and internal quotation marks
    omitted); Crisafi v. Holland, 
    655 F.2d 1305
    , 1307—08 (DC. Cir. 1981) (“A court may dismiss as
    frivolous complaints . . . postulating events and circumstances of a wholly fanciful kind”). A
    separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
    United ates District Judge
    Date: November  ,2014
    

Document Info

Docket Number: Civil Action No. 2014-2016

Judges: Judge Rudolph Contreras

Filed Date: 11/26/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/1/2014