Toor v. Moralas et al
Filing
16
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Gurpartap Singh Toor. This case should be dismissed. Objections to R&R due by 7/22/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 7/8/13. (bcw)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
STATE SBORO DIVISION
GURPARTAP SINGH TOOR,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
V.
)
Case No. CV613-051
)
WARDEN JOSE MORALAS,
)
)
Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On April 29, 2013, Gurpartap Singh Toor fired a blast of paper at
this Court. Proceeding pro Se, he applied for 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas
relief, Toor v. Morales, CV613-048 doe. 1 (S.D. Ga. Apr. 29, 2013), a
petition that was dismissed because he failed to pay the $5 filing fee.
Doc. 8. Next, he filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, Toor v. United States,
CV613-47, doe. 1 (S.D. Ga. Apr. 29, 2013), which this Court dismissed
because he cannot use § 2255 to challenge a state conviction. Id., does. 5
& 7. And finally, he filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in this case, also
slated for dismissal upon his failure to pay the $5 filing fee. CV613-051,
does. 2 & 7.
Having since paid that fee, Toor moves for leave to file a recitation
about Georgia's abusive litigation statute, doe. 12, as well as leave "to file
civil lawsuit(s) complaint(s) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331." Doc. 13.
Those motions (does. 12 & 13) are DENIED as nonsensical and
frivolous. And his § 2241 motion must be DENIED because the form he
selected shows that it is premised on a "savings clause" alternative to §
2255. See, e.g., United States v. Neder, 451 F. App'x 842, 845 (11th Cir.
2012). As previously noted, Toor is challenging a state conviction, which
means this matter must be raised under § 2254. Hence, he may file a
new § 2254 proceeding (or move to reopen CV613-048) and ask that the
fee be waived in light of his $5 payment here. In the meantime, this case
must be DISMISSED.
Applying the Certificate of Appealability (COA) standards set forth
in Brown v. United States, 2009 WL 307872 at * 1-2 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 9,
2009), the Court discerns no COA-worthy issues at this stage of the
litigation, so no COA should issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); see Alexander
v. Johnson, 211 F.3d 895, 898 (5th Cir. 2000) (approving sua sponte
denial of COA before movant filed a notice of appeal). And, as there are
no non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal, an appeal would not be taken
in good faith. Thus, in forma pauperis status on appeal should likewise
be DENIED. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
lk
SO REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED this ___ day of July,
2013.
UNITED/SfATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
3
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?