Bailey v. Wolfe
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Peter J. Messitte on 11/27/2017. (c/m)(hmls, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
WILLIAM M. BAILEY, #197976
Civil Action No. PJM-17-3062
William M. Bailey is incarcerated at Jessup Correctional Institution in Jessup Maryland.
On October 19, 2017, he filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, challenging the validity of
his judgment of conviction in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County as void for lack of
jurisdiction. Petition, ECF No. 1. Bailey asserts that he was not properly served with a copy of
the indictment and thus reasons that the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction to convict and sentence
him. Id. at 4. He claims his conviction was obtained in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution and Maryland law. Petition, ECF 1 at 3-4.
relief, Bailey seeks his release from incarceration. Id. The Petition is unaccompanied by the
$5.00 filing fee or a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. Requiring Bailey to correct this
deficiency, however, would serve merely to delay resolution of this case. Under Rule 4 of the
Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, which may be applied
to § 2241 cases under Rule 1(b), “[i]f it plainly appears from the [face of a § 2241] petition and
any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge
must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify petitioner.” (alterations added). For
reasons to follow, the Court will dismiss the Petition without prejudice.
Bailey was convicted in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County of first degree rape
and other sexual offenses. On April 5, 1989, the Circuit Court sentenced him to life
imprisonment. Petition, ECF 1 at 2; ECF 1-3. On December 29, 1994, Bailey filed a Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus that was denied by the Honorable William M. Nickerson on February 28,
1996. Bailey v. Smith, Civil Action No. WMN-94-3620 (D. Md.). On September 10, 1996, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the decision. Bailey v. Corcoran,
et al, 96 F.3d 1438 (4th Cir. 1996) (unpublished).
Federal habeas challenges filed by an inmate in custody pursuant to a state conviction are
properly filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which authorizes federal district courts to “entertain
an application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the
judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution
or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); In re Wright, 826 F.3d 774, 778
(4th Cir. 2016) (holding that regardless of how styled, federal habeas petitions of prisoners who
are in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court should be treated as applications under
Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the Petition without prejudice on the
grounds that the claims asserted are not cognizable under 28 U.S.C. §2241.
Here, Bailey is attacking his underlying conviction, and his claims must be raised in a
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254. When a prisoner held
“pursuant to the judgment of a State court” files a habeas petition attacking his conviction as
violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, § 2254, “all associated
statutory requirements” apply, regardless of the statutory label the prisoner chooses to give his
petition. In re Wright,826 F.3d at 783. Consequently, if Bailey intends to file a § 2254 Petition,
In In re Wright, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit also adopted the majority view of its
sister circuits to hold that the federal habeas petitions of state prisoners challenging the execution of a sentence
should be reviewed under 28 U.S.C.§ 2241. 826 F.3d at 778 (collecting cases).
the Petition is subject to associated gatekeeping provisions. For second or successively filed
§2254 petitions, “[b]efore a second or successive [§2254] application permitted by this section
is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an
order authorizing the district court to consider the application.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(3)(A)
Bailey is cautioned that if he intends to refile his claims in a second or successive
petition, he must first obtain pre-filing authorization from the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit. The Clerk will send him a copy of the instructions and form packet for filing
a motion under 28 U.S.C. §2244 (authorization of District Court to consider second or successive
application for relief). This information must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit.
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
A Certificate of Appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of
a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the
merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that
the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller–El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336–38 (2003).
When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both
that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the Petition states a debatable claim
of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484–85. The Court finds that Bailey has
not met this standard, and declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability.
For these reasons, the court will dismiss the Petition without prejudice and decline to
issue a Certificate of Appealability. A separate Order which follows this Memorandum Opinion.
PETER J. MESSITTE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
November 27, 2017
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?