Robinson v. Obama et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM regarding Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (D.I. 1 ). Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 8/10/2017. (nms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
SCOTT ROBINSON,
Petitioner,

v.
BARACK OBAMA, Et. Al.,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 16-350-RGA

MEMORANDUM

I.

BACKGROUND
Presently before the Court is Petitioner Scott Robinson's Petition for a Writ of Habeas

Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (D.1. 1) Although the Petition is mostly unintelligible,
Petitioner states that he is being used as a human subject by federal authorities against his will for
an exploratory research program. (D.I. 1 at 1) Petitioner alleges that former President Barack
Obama entered into a contractual agreement with a private research company authorizing the
company to conduct experiments that are operated remotely through a satellite network, "in
conjunction with GIS technology that was affixed to [him] on April 15, 2016." Id. at 6-8. For
relief, he asks the Court to issue a written order "excusing" him from the research study. Id. at 8.

II.

DISCUSSION
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; Johnson v. Warden,

Lewisburg USP, 668 F. App'x 415, 416 (3d Cir. 2016)(explaining that the Rules Governing

Section 2254.cases are applicable to§ 2241 petitions through Rule l(b), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254).
This is such a case. Section 2241 "confers habeas jurisdiction to hear the petition of a federal
prisoner who is challenging not the validity but the execution of his sentence." Coady v. Vaughn,
251F.3d480, 485 (3d Cir. 2001). Petitioner is not a federal prisoner, and he is not challenging
the execution of a federal sentence imposed by this Court (or any other federal court).
Consequently, the Court does not have§ 2241 jurisdiction over the case.
The Court further concludes that there is no basis for the issuance of a certificate of
appealibility, because Petitioner 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).

III.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court will dismiss the instant Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus in its entirety for lack of jurisdiction without issuing a certificate of appealability.
A separate order will be entered.

~~~

Dated: August Jfl_, 2017

UNITED STAJ: S DISTRICT JUDGE

2