ROUKIS v. UNITED STATES ARMY CORRECTIONS COMMAND

Filing 18

ENTRY Dismissing Action - The habeas petition shows on its face that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief he seeks. The habeas petition is therefore denied and this action is dismissed. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. **SEE ENTRY** Copy to petitioner via US mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 8/17/2015.(AH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
PETER T. ROUKIS,
Petitioner,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT, Federal
Correctional Complex,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:15-cv-96-JMS-WGH

Entry Dismissing Action and Directing Entry of Final Judgment
I.
The petitioner is confined in this District and was given a period of time in which to show
cause why this action should not be dismissed as improper following the adjudication of his habeas
claim in Roukis v. United States, No. 10 CIV. 2219 RA DF, 2013 WL 9889920, at *14 (S.D.N.Y.
Jan. 23, 2013) report and recommendation adopted as modified sub nom. Roukis v. U.S. Army,
No. 10-CV-2219-RA, 2014 WL 6238416 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2014).
The petitioner responded through his filing of July 1, 2015, in which he acknowledged the
prior habeas action and reviewed his claims. What he did not do, however, was to directly address
the task he was given—to explain why he should be permitted another habeas action. In order to
assure the petitioner of the fullest opportunity to save this action from summary dismissal he was
given a further period of time in which to show cause why the disposition of the prior habeas action
in the Southern District of New York should not result in the dismissal of the present action. That
time has expired and no further response was filed.

The petitioner’s habeas claim is the same which was presented—also pursuant to § 2241—
and rejected in the decision referenced above. The present action is repetitious of the habeas action
just referenced. He cannot use 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in this fashion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a); Valona
v. United States, 138 F.3d 693, 694 (7th Cir. 1998).
Federal courts are authorized to dismiss summarily any habeas petition that appears legally
insufficient on its face.” McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). Accordingly, a habeas
petition “should be denied at once if the issues it raises clearly have been forfeited or lack merit
under established law.” O’Connor v. United States, 133 F.3d 548, 551 (7th Cir. 1998). For the
reason explained above, this is an appropriate case for such a disposition. The habeas petition
shows on its face that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief he seeks. The habeas petition is
therefore denied and this action is dismissed.
II.
Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date:

08/17/2015

Distribution:
Peter T. Roukis
Reg. No. 17364-045
Terre Haute - U.S. Penitentiary
Inmate Mail/Parcels
P.O. Box 33
Terre Haute, IN 47808