Boyce v. Roden
Filing
4
Judge Douglas P. Woodlock: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that the petition for writ of habeas corpus is summarily dismissed without prejudice. Because the petition is subject to summary dismissal, petitioner will not be granted additional time to file an application to waive the filing fee.(PSSA, 4)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
JOEL M. BOYCE,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Petitioner,
v.
GARY RODEN, SUPERINTENDENT,
Respondent.
C.A. No. 12-10499-DPW
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On March 16, 2012, petitioner submitted for filing a pro se
petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
For the reasons set forth below, the petition is summarily
dismissed without prejudice.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner Joel M. Boyce (“Boyce” or “Petitioner”), an
inmate at MCI Norfolk, submitted for filing his self-prepared
pleading titled "Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad
Subjiciendum Against False Imprisonment."
See Petition.
Petitioner seeks immediate release and brings his claims under
the federal constitution and 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Id.
The petition
is accompanied by several documents including a copy of a habeas
petition that Boyce filed in state court earlier this year.
Id.
Petitioner complains that he was charged with armed robbery
and that he was confined for 491 days from the time of his arrest
in Pittsfield until the time of his trial in Superior Court.
at ¶¶ 2-3.
Id. at ¶ 4.
Id.
On March 28, 2006, he was committed to state prison.
Petitioner complains that he was kept in confinement
1
awaiting trial more than six months after having been indicted in
violation of his right to a speedy trial.
Id. at ¶ 5.
Boyce
contends that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because of the
denial of a speedy trial.
Id.
Boyce complains that both the
indictment and warrant [of commitment] were not issued by the
trial judge and lacked the wafer seal of the court.
Id. at ¶ 7.
Finally, Boyce complains that the assistant clerk was not
authorized to order his imprisonment, See id. at ¶ 6, and that
the respondent did not have in his possession the sentencing
transcripts from the trial court. Id. at ¶ 8.
DISCUSSION
I.
Filing Fee
A party filing a habeas corpus petition must either (1) pay
the $5 filing fee for habeas corpus actions or (2) file an
application to proceed without prepayment of fees.
See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1914(a) (fees); § 1915 (proceedings in forma pauperis).
Although petitioner filed a copy of his prison account statement,
he did not file a motion or application to waive the filing fee.
Because the petition is subject to summary dismissal, see infra.,
¶ II, petitioner will not be granted additional time to file an
application to waive the filing fee.
II.
Habeas Petition
A.
Standard of Review
The Habeas Rules require the assigned judge to review a
2
habeas petition prior to ordering an answer and to sua sponte
dismiss the petition under certain circumstances:
The clerk must promptly forward the petition to a judge
under the court's assignment procedure, and the judge must
promptly examine it. If it plainly appears from the 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 the
petitioner ....
28 U.S.C. § 2254 Rule 4.
The Supreme Court explained the pleading and summary
dismissal requirements of Habeas Rules 2 and 4 as follows:
Habeas Rule 2(c) ... provides that the petition must
“specify all the grounds for relief available to the
petitioner” and “state the facts supporting each ground.”
See also Advisory Committee's note on subd. (c) of Habeas
Corpus Rule 2, 28 U .S.C., p. 469 (“In the past, petitions
have frequently contained mere conclusions of law,
unsupported by any facts. [But] it is the relationship of
the facts to the claim asserted that is important ....”);
Advisory Committee's Note on Habeas Corpus Rule 4, 28
U.S.C., p. 471 (“ ‘[N]otice’ pleading is not sufficient, for
the petition is expected to state facts that point to a real
possibility of constitutional error.” (internal quotation
marks omitted)) ....
A prime purpose of Rule 2(c)'s demand that habeas
petitioners plead with particularity is to assist the
district court in determining whether the State should be
ordered to “show cause why the writ should not be granted.”
§ 2243. Under Habeas Corpus Rule 4, if “it plainly appears
from the petition ... that the petitioner is not entitled to
relief in district court,” the court must summarily dismiss
the petition without ordering a responsive pleading.
Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 655 (2005); see also McFarland v.
Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994).
A petition for a writ of habeas corpus may also be summarily
3
dismissed if it fails to set forth facts that give rise to a
cause of action under federal law.
28 U.S.C. § 2243; Marmol v.
Dubois, 885 F. Supp. 444, 446 (D. Mass. 1994).
Brevis
disposition is appropriate if the petition and submitted
materials make plain that the petitioner suffered no harm that is
remediable under federal law.
Mahoney v. Vondergritt, 938 F.2d
1490, 1494 (1st Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1104, 112 S.
Ct. 1195, 117 L. Ed. 2d 436 (1992) (footnote omitted).
The
liberal concept of notice pleading has been rejected in the
context of habeas corpus petitions, for the petition is expected
to state facts that point to a "real possibility of
constitutional error."
Aubut v. State of Maine, 431 F. 2d 688,
689 (1st Cir. 1970), cited in Advisory Committee's Note to Rule
4, Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 foll.
(1976); Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 n. 7, 97 S. Ct.
1621, 1629-30 n. 7, 52 L. Ed. 2d 136 (1977).
B.
The Petition is Subject to Summary Dismissal
Petitioner complains that he was held in pretrial detention
awaiting trial for over sixteen months.
To the extent this
allegation can be construed as a speedy trial claim,1 petitioner
has not alleged exhaustion of his state court remedies.
An
application for a writ of habeas corpus may not be granted unless
1
The Sixth Amendment provides that "[i]n all criminal
prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and
public trial...." U.S. Const. amend. VI.
4
the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts
of the State.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A).
To exhaust a claim
in Massachusetts, a habeas petitioner must present the substance
of the claim to the state's highest tribunal, the Supreme
Judicial Court.
Josselyn v. Dennehy, 475 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir.
2007). The defendant must give the state courts “a fair
opportunity” to consider his claim. Lanigan v. Maloney, 853 F.2d
40, 42 (1st Cir. 1988). That requirement applies to the facts and
federal legal theories underlying each claim.
Coalter, 337 F.3d 74, 86 (1st Cir. 2003).
petition must be exhausted.
Jackson v.
Every claim in a
Thus, even if there are exhausted
claims, the existence of an unexhausted claim in a petition
generally means that the petition will be dismissed or denied on
the merits.
28 U.S.C § 2254(b)(1)-(2); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S.
509, 522, 102 S.Ct. 1198, 71 L.Ed.2d 379 (1982).
Attached to the instant petition is a copy of the habeas
petition that Boyce filed with the Single Justice of the Supreme
Judicial Court.
2012).
See Boyce v. Roden, SJ-2012-0028 (filed Jan. 23,
By Order dated March 15, 2012, the Single Justice
transferred the case to Berkshire Superior Court in Pittsfield,
Massachusetts.
Other than the speedy trial claim, the petition fails to
state any viable claims that petitioner is in custody in
violation of the United States Constitution.
5
Petitioner provides
no discussion of how the alleged facts might violate any federal
constitutional right, as opposed to state law.2
The facts
alleged by petitioner concerning the indictment and warrant of
commitment are not sufficient to state a claim for violation of
the federal constitution.
See Mosley v. Moran, 798 F.2d 182, 185
(7th Cir. 1985) ("only violations of federal statutory or
constitutional law can be the basis for granting federal habeas
relief").
After undertaking the review required by Rule 4, this Court
concludes that Boyce’s habeas claims are meritless, such that the
petition must be summarily dismissed.
ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that the
petition for writ of habeas corpus is summarily dismissed without
prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
March 27, 2012
DATE
/s/ Douglas P. Woodlock
DOUGLAS P. WOODLOCK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
Petitioner has no federal constitutional right to have
state courts abide by state law. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502
U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991) (federal habeas relief unavailable for
violations of state law or for alleged error in the
interpretation or application of state law).
6
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?