Gregory v. Massry et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 12/29/14. (etg, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELA WARE
LATNIE ZACHARIAH WILLIAM GREGORY,

)
)

Petitioner,

)
)

V.

)

Civil Action No. 14-1219-GMS

)

HONORABLE NORMAN MASSRY, et. al.,
Respondents.

)
)
)

MEMORANDUM
I.

BACKGROUND
Pending before the court is petitioner Gregory's request for emergency habeas corpus

relief ("petition"). (D.I. 1) Gregory contends that he has been unlawfully imprisoned in the
Albany County Correctional Facility since August 19, 2014, because "no criminal action has
been commenced against [him] by the filing of a complaint, by a competent fact witness or
witness alleging the necessary and essential facts sufficient to constitute the elements of a crime
that would invoke a lawful court's jurisdiction in the first instance to try, convict, sentence []."
Id. at 2, 7. He asks the court to order his immediate discharge from prison, and appears to assert

that this court has jurisdiction to grant his request because "no court or judge [] has exclusive
jurisdiction to order petitioner released." Id. at 12, 14.
II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
Federal courts are required to liberally construe prose filings. See Royce v. Hahn, 151

F.3d 116, 118 (3d Cir. 1998). Nevertheless, a district court may summarily dismiss a habeas
petition "if it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief." See Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.

III.

DISCUSSION
Having reviewed the face of the petition, the court concludes that summary dismissal is

appropriate in this case. Gregory is not in custody in the State of Delaware, he does not
challenge a sentence or conviction imposed by the State of Delaware, and he does not challenge a
sentence or conviction imposed by this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254; 28 U.S.C. §
2241 (d)(petition may be filed either in the district "wherein such person is in custody or ... the
district within which State court was held which convicted and sentenced him"); 28 U.S.C. §
2242; Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United District Court, Rule 2(a). Therefore,
the court does not have jurisdiction over the instant proceeding.

IV.

CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reason, the court will dismiss Gregory's "emergency" habeas

petition for lack of jurisdiction. The court will also decline to issue a certificate of appealability
because Gregory has failed to make a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); 3d Cir. L.A.R. 22.2 (2011); United States v. Eyer, 113 F.3d 470
(3d Cir. 1997). A separate Order will be entered.

(Ju__ 1-'t I 'b2 l 'f
DATE

2