Dennis v. Holland
Filing
3
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1. The Clerk of the Court shall send a copy of this Order to the warden of the institution in which Dennis is currently confined. 2. Dennis's custodian shall send the Clerk of the Court payment of the $5.0 0 filing fee from funds in Dennis's inmate trust fund account once the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 3. Dennis's petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. # 1 ) is DENIED. 4. This acti on is DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the Court's docket. 5. Judgment shall be entered contemporaneously with this Memorandum Opinion and Order. Signed by Circuit Judge Danny J. Boggs on 12/07/2015.(KJA)cc: COR, paper copy to pro se filer and Warden at USP-McCreary
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
SOUTHERN DIVISION
AT LONDON
CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-206-DLB
RICKY A. DENNIS,
VS.
PETITIONER
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
J. C. HOLLAND, WARDEN,
RESPONDENT
*** *** *** ***
Ricky A. Dennis is an inmate confined at the United States Penitentiary McCreary in Pine Knot, Kentucky. Proceeding without an attorney, Dennis has filed a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. # 1).
Dennis has not paid the $5.00 filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914 or filed a
motion to waive payment of it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Because the filing fee is
incurred when the petition is filed, the Court will direct the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) to
deduct the five dollar filing fee from funds in Dennis’s inmate account in satisfaction of
that financial obligation.
The Court conducts an initial review of habeas corpus petitions.
28 U.S.C.
§ 2243; Alexander v. Northern Bureau of Prisons, 419 F. App’x 544, 545 (6th Cir. 2011).
The Court must deny the petition “if it plainly appears from the petition and any attached
exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing
§ 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (applicable to § 2241 petitions
pursuant to Rule 1(b)). The Court evaluates Dennis’s petition under a more lenient
1
standard because he is not represented by an attorney. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S.
89, 94 (2007); Burton v. Jones, 321 F.3d 569, 573 (6th Cir. 2003). At this stage, the
Court accepts the petitioner’s factual allegations as true, and his legal claims are
liberally construed in his favor. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56
(2007).
In his petition, Dennis states that he has “delivered his payment” of all fines and
costs imposed as part of the criminal judgment entered against him, and contends
therefore that he is entitled to dissolution of the “lien” against him in his criminal case,
presumably resulting in his release from prison. (Doc. # 1, p. 1-3) This argument is
functionally identical to one made repeatedly by Christopher Harris, another inmate at
USP – McCreary, whose repeated and abusive filings have resulted in the entry of a
sanctions order prohibiting him from filing new actions or motions absent prior
permission from the Court. Harris v. U.S. Marshal, No. 15-120-DLB (E.D. Ky. 2015).
Indeed, the handwriting in Dennis’s petition plainly belongs to Harris, who drafted this
and numerous nearly-identical petitions on behalf of several other inmates and filed
them within a matter of days. See Williams v. Holland, No. 6: 15-201-KKC (E.D. Ky.
2015); Dennis v. Holland, No. 6: 15-205-DLB (E.D. Ky. 2015); Dennis v. Holland, No. 6:
15-206-DLB (E.D. Ky. 2015); Dennis v. Holland, No. 6: 15-207-GFVT (E.D. Ky. 2015);
Hinojosa v. Holland, No. 6: 15-208-DLB (E.D. Ky. 2015); Dennis v. Holland, No. 6: 15210-KKC (E.D. Ky. 2015).
On the merits, this argument is entirely frivolous. Cf. United States v. Harris, No.
1:98-CR-121-SEB-DKL-3 (S.D. Ind. 1998) (Doc. # 86 therein (“[T]he defendant is
serving the executed portion of the sentence imposed in the above action and his
2
requests are based on the mistaken premise that the judgment entered in the case
represents a commercial transaction which can be satisfied—to secure his release—by
the posting of a bond.”)); Harris v. Wands, 410 F. App’x 125 (10th Cir. 2011) (“Mr. Harris
does not appear to challenge the validity of his conviction, only its execution, and he
does so based on principles of contract law. Despite his arguments to the contrary,
however, Mr. Harris’s sentence is not the creation of civil commercial transactions.”);
Harris v. Kammerzell, 440 F. App’x 627 (10th Cir. 2011) (same, and affirming the district
court’s imposition of pre-filing restrictions); Harris v. Holder, No. 1:14-CV-584, 2014 WL
4388263 (S.D. W. Va. Sept. 3, 2014) (same). The Court agrees with the Tenth Circuit
that the “use of commercial law theories based on the U.C.C. to attack the execution of
his criminal sentence simply has no foundation in our laws.” Harris, 410 F. App’x at
147. Dennis’s petition will therefore be denied.
Dennis, who signed the petition, is cautioned that the Court will impose
substantial sanctions or fines upon him should he file such patently frivolous actions or
motions again, whether in this case or in future matters.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1.
The Clerk of the Court shall send a copy of this Order to the warden of the
institution in which Dennis is currently confined.
2.
Dennis’s custodian shall send the Clerk of the Court payment of the $5.00
filing fee from funds in Dennis’s inmate trust fund account once the amount in the
account exceeds $10.00.
3.
Dennis’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
(Doc. #1) is DENIED.
3
4.
This action is DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the Court’s docket.
5.
Judgment shall be entered contemporaneously with this Memorandum
Opinion and Order.
This 7th day of December, 2015.
G:DATA\ORDERS\ProSe\15-206 MOO Dismissing 2241 Petition
4
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?