Gjini v. Santiago
ORDER: Pursuant to the attached order, Petitioner is directed to file an Amended Petition on a Section 2254 court form on or before 08/03/2017. The Clerk is directed to send the Petitioner a copy of this order, an Amended Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Petition form, and a copy of the petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner's failure to comply with the attached order will result in dismissal without further notice from the Court. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 07/13/2017.(Lee, E.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
WARDEN ANTONIO SANTIAGO,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00662 (VLB)
The Petitioner, Gazmen Gjini, is incarcerated at Corrigan-Radgowski
Correctional Institution in Uncasville, Connecticut. He brings this action pro se for
a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to challenge his 2013
convictions for possession of narcotics and engaging in police pursuit.
The Petitioner states that he appealed his conviction to the Connecticut
Appellate and Supreme Courts. The petition for writ of habeas corpus, however,
does not state the grounds raised on appeal to either the Connecticut Appellate
Court or the Connecticut Supreme Court.
The petition appears to include only one ground for relief. The Petitioner
claims that his conviction and sentence were “obtained in violation of his federally
protected constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment[s]
of the United States Constitution.” Pet. Writ Habeas Corpus, ECF No. 1 at 7. The
Petitioner does not describe how the conviction or sentence violated any of the
three Constitutional amendments. Nor does he attach copies of any of the state
court decisions to his petition.
As a preliminary matter, the petition is not filed on a court form. Instead, the
Petitioner has filed a handwritten petition for writ of habeas corpus. Because Local
Rule 8(b) requires that petitions for writ of habeas corpus be filed on court forms,
the petition is procedurally deficient. This deficiency is not merely formulaic as the
forms are designed to elicit the information necessary to make out a claim,
including the specific facts constituting a constitutional violation absent in this
In addition, Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the
United States District Courts provides that a “petition must: (1) specify all grounds
for relief available to the Petitioner; (2) state the facts supporting each ground; (3)
state the relief requested; (4) be printed, typewritten, or legibly handwritten; and (5)
be signed under penalty of perjury.” Because the Petitioner has not stated the
ground or grounds for relief with sufficient specificity or included any facts in
support of the ground or grounds, the petition is substantively deficient and does
not comply with Rule 2(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
Accordingly, the Court directs the Petitioner to file an amended petition for
writ of habeas corpus using the Court’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 form. The Petitioner must
answer all questions on the habeas petition form and should include the grounds
on which he seeks to proceed and the facts supporting and explaining each ground
in the spaces provided on the form.
The Court directs the Petitioner to file an Amended Petition on a Section 2254
court form within twenty-one (21) days from the date of this order. The Clerk is
directed to send the Petitioner a copy of this order, an Amended Section 2254
Habeas Corpus Petition form and a copy of the petition for writ of habeas corpus,
ECF No. 1.
If the Petitioner chooses not to file an amended petition on the Court’s form
or fails to identify the ground or grounds for relief with sufficient specificity and
provide facts in support of each ground on or before August 3, 2017, the case will
be dismissed without further notice from the Court.
SO ORDERED at Hartford, Connecticut this 13th day of July, 2017.
VANESSA L. Bryant
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?