Burton v. Armstrong et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge James K. Bredar on 5/27/2015. (c/m 5/28/15 bas, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
BOBBY E. BURTON, JR.
Petitioner
v.
BRUCE ARMSTRONG
Respondent

*
*
Civil Action No. JKB-15-1420
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
***
MEMORANDUM

Bobby E. Burton, Jr., a self-represented petitioner presently confined at the Alfred
Hughes Unit in Gatesville, Texas, filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254, to challenge a “15 day cell restriction” for sexual misconduct imposed on
November 27, 2014, in Waco, Texas. (ECF 1). The Texas Department of Criminal Justice’s
Offender Search, located at http://offender.tdcj.state.tx.us/OffenderSearch/, indicates that Burton
is serving state sentences for murder, aggravated robbery, aggravated perjury, and criminal
mischief.
The instant petition has no connection with Maryland. The Maryland Judiciary case
search website at http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/casesearch/inquirySearch.jis does not list
Burton as having ever been convicted of a crime in Maryland or serving a sentence in this state.
Burton has never been convicted of a crime in this court.
Habeas corpus petitions must be filed either in the federal district in which the prisoner
was convicted or in the federal district in which the prisoner is confined. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241

(a)(b)(2006). Accordingly, this case will be dismissed without prejudice to refiling in the
appropriate judicial district.1 To the extent Burton intends to appeal the imposition of a prison
disciplinary sanction, not a state court conviction, he may pursue his administrative and judicial
remedies as appropriate.
Under Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Proceedings under Section 2254 “the district
court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the
applicant ... If the court issues a certificate, the court must state the specific issue or issues that
satisfy the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).” In Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473
(2000), the Supreme Court held that “[w]hen the district court denies a habeas petition on
procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner’s underlying constitutional claim, a COA
[certificate of appealability] should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, that ... jurists of
reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.”
Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. Burton does not satisfy this standard, and the court declines to issue a
certificate of appealability.
For these reasons, the court will dismiss the petition without prejudice and decline to
issue a COA. A separate order follows.

__May 27, 2015___
Date

________/s/_________________
James K. Bredar
United States District Judge

1

Burton has filed more than seventy-nine cases in various federal courts since 2013, a number of which were
§ 2254 actions ultimately transferred for improper venue. See https://pcl.uscourts.gov/ view?rid= g7P7DTM
5EcPoc9vrMz0bB9jjHkbPxtEuyUYCQErT&page=2. In light of Burton’s status as a frequent pro se filer in many
districts, the court finds transferring this case to the proper venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) would not serve
the interests of justice.

2