SPIVEY v. RIVEREDGE MILLEDGEVILLE MENTAL HEALTH
ORDER denying as moot 4 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying as moot 5 Motion to Appoint Counsel; granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; denying 1 petition for writ of habeas corpus. Ordered by CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE MARC T TREADWELL on 9/11/2020. (hmc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:20-CV-186
Pro se Petitioner Mandriez Spivey has filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of
habeas corpus challenging his 1999 seven-day detention in Central State Hospital in
Milledgeville, Georgia. 1 Docs. 1 at 1, 5, 7; 4. He also moves to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP”). Doc. 2. For purposes of his dismissal alone, his motion to proceed
IFP (Doc. 2) is GRANTED. For the following reasons, Petitioner’s § 2254 petition (Doc.
1) is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
This matter is before the Court pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, which provides:
The clerk must promptly forward the petition to a judge under
the court’s assignment procedure, and the judge must
In his original § 2254 petition, Petitioner showed “Riveredge Milledgeville Mental Health” as the
Respondent. Doc. 1 at 1. In his motion to amend, Petitioner requests that the Respondent’s name be
amended/corrected to show Central State Hospital in Milledgeville, Georgia. Doc. 4. To the extent that
Petitioner seeks to amend/correct the name of Respondent, his motion (Doc. 4) is GRANTED. In his
motion to amend, Petitioner also requests (1) additional “judicial review forms;” (2) information regarding
his appeal in different case; (3) “federal subpoenas;” and (4) information regarding a case he wants to file
against a federal probation officer. Id. Those requests (Doc. 4) are DENIED.
promptly examine it. If it plainly appears from the petition and
any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief
in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and
direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.
Petitioner complains that in 1999 he was “found to have a mental health
condition … which was a part of a conspiracy to cover up and retaliate on me.” Doc. 1
at 5. Specifically, he states that in 1999, he and two other inmates
were pulled out of our cell by an officer and taken into the
hallway for no apparent reason. Once there, the officer began
to holler and talk about gangs and that they were the only
gang in Bibb LEC. … I was assaulted, endured lacerations
on my eye and bruises to my body, which I did not given [sic]
medical attention. Later I was taken to Milledgeville Mental
Health for no apparent reason after I had been hidden and
allowed to heal. I did not become aware of this until recently.
Id. In his second and third grounds, Petitioner states more generally the same facts in
the first ground. Id. at 7−8. Spivey requests that “these finding[s be] dismissed or that
these records be cleared.” Id. at 15.
Federal courts have jurisdiction to entertain habeas petitions filed by a person “in
custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that the petitioner
is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28
U.S.C. § 2254(a); see 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c). However, a petitioner must be “‘in custody’
under the conviction or sentence under attack at the time his petition is filed.” Maleng v.
Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490−91 (1989). Petitioner was not in custody pursuant to any
State court conviction at the time he filed his petition. Doc. 2 at 5; Diaz v. Fla. Fourth
Judicial Circuit, 683 F.3d 1261, 1264−65 (11th Cir. 2012). A successful § 2254 petition
would thus not affect Petitioner’s current incarceration. Garlotte v. Fordice, 515 U.S. 39,
For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner’s motion to proceed IFP (Doc. 2) is
GRANTED, his petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is DENIED, his motion to
amend his petition (Doc. 4) is DENIED as moot, and his motion to appoint counsel
(Doc. 5) is DENIED as moot.
SO ORDERED, this 11th day of September, 2020.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
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?