Blanton v. The State
ORDER granting 4 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis.; denying 7 Motion to Invoke; denying 14 Motion to Invoke 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(B); denying 2 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 1/6/17. (loh)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ERIC MITCHELL BLANTON,
Proceeding pro se , inmate Eric Mitchell Blanton has filed a
mishmash of “habeas” filings relating to some sort of conviction(s?),
doc. 1, but he failed to use a standard 28 U.S.C. § 2254 form -- which
would otherwise force clarification ( e.g., the exact conviction he
challenges, whether he has exhausted his state remedies, etc.). Finding
him indigent, the Court GRANTS his motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis (doc. 4) but DENIES all of his other motions. Docs. 2, 7,
8 & 14. Whatever habeas relief that he sought in them may be re-raised in
a fully executed § 2254 petition.
Blanton must place within his prison’s mail system a fully
completed (this means he must answer all questions) § 2254 form (the
Clerk shall enclose a fresh form with this Order to him) within 30 days of
the date this Order is served or face a recommendation of dismissal of this
case for noncompliance under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); L.R. 41(b)
(authorizing dismissal for neglect of any Court order). 1 He is reminded
that habeas petitioners:
cannot simply laundry-list their claims and hope that the court will
develop (hence, litigate) them on their behalf. Holmes v. United
States , 876 F.2d 1545, 1553 (11th Cir. 1989) (no hearing required on
claims “which are based on unsupported generalizations”);
Rodriguez v. United States , 473 F.2d 1042, 1043 (5th Cir. 1973) (no
hearing required where petitioner alleged no facts to establish truth
of his claims beyond bare conclusory allegations). Jeffcoat v. Brown ,
2014 WL 1319369 at * 8 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 27, 2014); Bartley v. United
States , 2013 WL 6234694 at * 2–3 (S.D. Ga. Dec. 2, 2013) (§ 2255
claims bereft of argument and citation to the record may be denied
on pleading-deficiency grounds alone); see also Johnson v. Razdan ,
[564 F. App’x 481, 484 (11th Cir. 2014) ] (“Although pro se briefs are
to be construed liberally, a pro se litigant who offers no substantive
argument on an issue in his initial brief abandons that issue on
Eubank v. United States , 2016 WL 750344 at * 2 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 25, 2016).
Blanton has sent letters to this Court. Docs. 17 & 18. They are not welcome. Parties
should submit to this Court formal complaints, petitions, motions, briefs, and Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(2) Objections, not letters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1) (requires that requests
for judicial action be made “by motion.”). Letters also can get lost, while complaints,
motions and briefs are filed in the record of each case. This creates a public record of a
matter presented for the Court's consideration. See In Re: Unsolicited Letters to
Federal Judges, 126 F. Supp. 2d 1073 (S.D. Ga. 2000) .
Put another way, Blanton’s “allegations must be factual and
specific, not conclusory. Conclusory allegations are simply not enough to
warrant a hearing.” Chavez v. Sec’y Fla. Dep’t of Corr. , 647 F.3d 1057,
1061 (11th Cir. 2011); see also Borden v. Allen , 646 F.3d 785, 810 (11th
Cir. 2011) (applying a heightened pleading requirement in habeas cases
and noting that “[t]he evidence supporting an ineffective assistance of
counsel claim is available following the conviction, if not before. Whatever
the claim, though, the petitioner is, or should be, aware of the evidence to
support the claim before bringing his petition.”); Gerwald v. United
States , 2014 WL 1681506 at * 3 n. 5 (S.D. Ga. Apr. 28, 2014).
SO ORDERED, this 6th day of January, 2017.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
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?