Blanton v. The State

Filing 23

ORDER denying 20 Motion to invoke 18 USC 3006A(a)(2)(B). The Court again DIRECTS the Clerk to send Blanton a § 2254 form. Blanton must place within his prisons 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. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 1/27/17. (jlm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
ERIC MITCHELL BLANTON,
Petitioner,
v.

CV416-213

THE STATE,
Respondent.

ORDER
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.). The Court
directed him to file anew, on a court-supplied § 2254 petition form.
Doc. 19. He now says he did not receive one, doc. 21 at 2, and the docket
fails to reflect that he in fact was sent one.
Meanwhile, Blanton has filed a “Notice of Appeal,” doc. 21, as well
as a “Motion to Invoke 18 U.S.C. § 3006(a)(2)(B).” Doc. 20. The appeal
notice is misnamed; Blanton simply seeks reconsideration of the Court’s

last Order, and the Court denies same. Still, the Clerk has processed the
appeal, which most certainly faces dismissal on nonfinality grounds.
In any event, the Court again DIRECTS the Clerk to send Blanton
a § 2254 form. 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) and L.R. 41(b)
(authorizing dismissal for neglect of any Court order). Blanton’s
§ 3006(a)(2)(B) motion, which is really just a motion for appointment of
counsel, 1 is DENIED . Doc. 20.
Finally, the Court again reminds Blanton 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 ,
1

“[F]ederal courts generally appoint counsel in post-conviction proceedings only after
a petition for post-conviction relief passes initial evaluation.” Shepherd v. United
States , 253 F.3d 585, 587 (11th Cir. 2001) (citing Johnson v. Avery , 393 U.S. 483,
487-88 (1969)). Blanton hasn’t even filed such a petition and he otherwise makes no
showing that he is entitled to counsel at the taxpayers’ expense.
2

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
appeal.”).

Hopkins v. United States , 2014 WL 2624425 at *1 n. 3 (S.D. Ga. June 12,
2014); see also Eubank v. United States , 2016 WL 750344 at * 2 (S.D. Ga.
Feb. 25, 2016) (same).
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).

91

SO ORDERED , this 27th day of January, 2017.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGLA.