Pierce v. Rohling
ORDER ENTERED: This action is treated as a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2241, petitioner's motion 2 for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, and this action is dismissed and all relief denied for failure to state a claim for federal habeas corpus relief. Signed by Senior Judge Sam A. Crow on 01/05/07. (smnd)
Pierce v. Rohling
Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS CHRISTOPHER PIERCE, Petitioner, v. KAREN ROHLING, Respondent. ORDER This action was filed by an inmate of the Larned Correctional Health Facility, Larned, Kansas, on forms for filing a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. Petitioner claims he was granted parole while confined in Oklahoma, and seeks an order releasing him from confinement. The court construes this action as CASE NO. 06-3355-SAC
a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2241 rather than under Section 2254. Petitioner has also filed an Inmate Account Statement, which this court has treated as a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2). Having considered this document, the court finds Mr. Pierce is without adequate funds, and leave should be granted. Having considered the allegations in the Petition and the onepage, attached exhibit, which is an incomplete Program
Classification Review form with no apparent relevance to a claim of parole, the court finds no claim for federal habeas corpus relief is stated. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is treated as a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2241,
Page 2 of 2
petitioner's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is granted, and this action is dismissed and all relief denied for failure to state a claim for federal habeas corpus relief. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 5th day of January, 2007, at Topeka, Kansas.
s/Sam A. Crow U. S. Senior District Judge
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?