Griffin v. Department of Justice et al

Filing 3

ORDER ENTERED: Petitioner is granted twenty (20) days in which to satisfy the filing fee, name a proper respondent, and show cause why this action should not be dismissed. Petitioner's motion 2 to appoint counsel is denied without prejudice. Signed by Senior District Judge Richard D. Rogers on 6/15/2011. (Mailed to pro se party Eric Griffin by regular mail.) (smnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
ERIC GRIFFIN,
Petitioner,
v.

CASE NO.

11-3095-RDR

DEPT. OF JUSTICE/ BOP REGIONAL
DISTRICT, et al.,
Respondents.
O R D E R
This pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus was filed
pursuant

to

28

U.S.C.

§

2241

by

an

inmate

of

CCA-Nevada.

Petitioner has also filed a motion for appointment of counsel.
Having screened the materials filed, the court finds as follows.
As petitioner was informed in a prior similar case, the
statutory fee of $5.00 must be satisfied for the filing of a
federal habeas corpus action.

Petitioner has neither paid the

filing fee nor submitted a properly supported motion to proceed in
forma pauperis.

This action may not proceed until Mr. Griffin

satisfies the filing fee prerequisite in one of these two ways. He
will be given time to satisfy the filing fee.

If he fails to do so

within the time allotted this action may be dismissed without
further notice.
As ground 1 in his petition, Mr. Griffin claims “contempt
by respondents”.

In support, he alleges that he mailed a petition

to this court around March 13, 2011 and that it never arrived
because it was stolen by defendants.

Contrary to petitioner’s

allegations, this court did receive and dismiss a prior petition
mailed by Mr. Griffin that was filed on March 17, 2011.

See Miller

v. Regional Director, BOP, Case No. 11-3064 (May 13, 2011).
As ground 2, petitioner claims “contempt of court to cover
up illegal detention.”

In support he alleges that in April, 2011

he mailed a change of address and another 2241 writ to this court,
and that “agents of respondents” stole his mail to this court “to
cover up” his illegal detention.

He claims these allegations give

this court “sole jurisdiction.”

As ground 3, petitioner claims

“medical violation.” In support he alleges that “respondents” have
denied him medical attention for “a very complex matter” which he
does not want to be of public record.

He further alleges that

“agents of respondents” have denied him witnesses and the right to
testify regarding his claims and have failed to fully investigate
his claims.

As ground 4, petitioner claims “illegal detention.”

In support he alleges that as of January 14, 2011, “respondents”
have held him in illegal detention and are trying to relocate him
to avoid justice.
This petition is deficient in several respects.

First and

foremost, petitioner does not appear to now be or to ever have been
confined within this federal judicial district.

He alleges no

facts whatsoever indicating that this court is the proper venue for
his claims of illegal detention.
Second, the only proper respondent in a habeas corpus
petition is the petitioner’s current custodian.

Petitioner names

several

be

defendants,

none

of

whom
2

appears

to

his

current

custodian.
Third, the allegations made by Mr. Griffin utterly fail to
state a claim for federal habeas corpus relief. His allegations of
interference with legal mail and denial of medical attention are
not grounds for release from prison. Instead, these claims must be
raised in a civil rights complaint that names the individual person
or persons who actually handled his mail or denied his requests for
medical treatment and that includes other facts including dates and
locations

of

these

occurrences.

Petitioner

claim

that

his

detention is illegal is completely conclusory.
Finally, to the extent Mr. Griffin may be attempting to
litigate civil rights claims against the respondents, he fails to
allege any facts which actually establish that this court has
jurisdiction over those persons or his claims against them, if any.
His bald conclusion that this court has sole jurisdiction is
patently without legal merit.
Petitioner shall be given time to satisfy the filing fee,
name a proper respondent, and show cause why this action should not
be dismissed for failure to show that this court has jurisdiction
or is the proper venue for any of the claims in his petition and
for failure to state a valid claim for federal habeas corpus
relief.

If he fails to adequately respond in the time allotted,

this action may be dismissed without further notice.
The

court

finds

that

appointment

of

counsel

is

not

warranted in this case, given the court’s findings.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner is granted twenty
3

(20) days in which to satisfy the filing fee, name a proper
respondent, and show cause why this action should not be dismissed
for the reasons stated herein.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s Motion to Appoint
Counsel (Doc. 2) is denied without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

This 15th day of June, 2011, at Topeka, Kansas.

s/RICHARD D. ROGERS
United States District Judge

4