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)

Download PDF
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

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?