Pettigrew v. Holland
Filing
3
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 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 Pettigrew is currently confined. 2. Pettigrews custodian shall send the Clerk of the Court paym ent of the $5.00 filing fee from funds in Pettigrew's inmate trust fund account once the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 3. Pettigrew's petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [R. 1 ] is D ENIED. 4. This action is DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the Court's docket. 5. Judgment shall be entered contemporaneously with this Memorandum Opinion and Order. Signed by Judge Gregory F. VanTatenhove on 12/15/2015.(KJA)cc: COR, paper copy to pro se filer and Warden USP-McCreary
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LONDON
KAVURANTE D. PETTIGREW,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN J. C. HOLLAND,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil No. 6: 15-207-GFVT
MEMORANDUM OPINION
& ORDER
*** *** *** ***
Kavurante D. Pettigrew is an inmate confined at the United States Penitentiary McCreary in Pine Knot, Kentucky. Proceeding without an attorney, Pettigrew has filed a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [R. 1]
Pettigrew has not paid the $5.00 filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914 nor 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 Pettigrew’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
Pettigrew’s petition under a more lenient 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, Pettigrew 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. [R. 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. 15-120DLB (E.D. Ky. 2015). Indeed, the handwriting in Pettigrew’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 matters of days. See Williams v. Holland, No. 6: 15-201-KKC (E.D. Ky.
2015); Kelly v. Holland, No. 6: 15-205-DLB (E.D. Ky. 2015); Dennis v. Holland, No. 6: 15-206DLB (E.D. Ky. 2015); Pettigrew v. Holland, No. 6: 15-207-GFVT (E.D. Ky. 2015); Hinojosa v.
Holland, No. 6: 15-208-DLB (E.D. Ky. 2015); Pettigrew v. Holland, No. 6: 15-210-KKC (E.D.
Ky. 2015).
On the merits, this argument is entirely frivolous. Cf. United States v. Harris, No. 1:98CR-121-SEB-DKL-3 (S.D. Ind. 1998) [R. 86 therein (“the defendant is serving the executed
portion of the sentence imposed in the above action and his 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,
2
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.
Pettigrew’s petition will therefore be denied.
Pettigrew, 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 Pettigrew is currently confined.
2.
Pettigrew’s custodian shall send the Clerk of the Court payment of the $5.00
filing fee from funds in Pettigrew’s inmate trust fund account once the amount in the account
exceeds $10.00.
3.
Pettigrew’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
[R. 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 December 15, 2015.
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?