Gaines v No Named Respondent

Filing 6

Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED without prejudice and this action is DISMISSED. The Clerk shall enter a separate order of dismissal.(PSSA, 4)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
ALTON J. GAINES,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO.
14-11234-IT

NO NAMED RESPONDENT,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
For the reasons stated below, the Court denies the instant
petition for a writ of habeas corpus and orders that this action
be dismissed.
BACKGROUND
Alton J. Gaines (“Gaines”), a Colorado resident and parolee
under the supervision of the Colorado Northeast Parole Office in
Westminster, Colorado, filed a pro se “petition to motion for
writ of habeas corpus for petitioner’s restoration & suspended
sentence ‘pre-approved community corrections’ ordered immediate
discharge of DOC #138834 and release from incarceration on
release.”

Gaines did not pay the $5 filing fee and the petition

is accompanied by numerous exhibits.
The eighteen-page “petition” consists of several pages of
pleadings interspersed with documents from various Colorado state
courts.

See Docket No. 1.

In the case caption, the name of the

Colorado Court is preceded by the handwritten phrase “U.S.
Supreme Court State of Massachusetts In and For.”

Id.

Petitioner’s allegations are confusing and it is impossible to
discern what claims are being made against which respondent.

DISCUSSION
Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases
Under Section 2254, the Court is required to examine a petition,
and if it “plainly appears from the face of the petition . . .
that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district
court,” the Court “must dismiss the petition.”

Rule 4; see also

McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994) (habeas petition may
be dismissed if it appears to be legally insufficient on its
face); Mahoney v. Vondergritt, 938 F.2d 1490, 1494 (1st Cir.
1991) (upholding Rule 4 summary dismissal of § 2254 petition).
Similarly, under 28 U.S.C. § 2243, if “it appears from the
application [for a writ of habeas corpus] that the applicant . .
. is not entitled [to the writ],” the district court is not
required to order the respondent “to show cause why the writ [of
habeas corpus] should not be granted.”

28 U.S.C. § 2243; see

also Marmol v. Dubois, 855 F. Supp. 444, 446 (D. Mass. 1994).

In

considering whether Petitioner’s petition clears this hurdle, the
Court liberally construes the petition because Petitioner is
proceeding pro se.

See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21

(1972).
Upon screening Petitioner’s petition under Rule 4 and 28
U.S.C. § 2243, the Court concludes that Petitioner has not
alleged any basis on which the Court could issue a writ of habeas
corpus.

There is nothing in the petition from which this Court

2

could reasonably infer the presentation of any cognizable habeas
claim.
ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that the
petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED without prejudice
and this action is DISMISSED.

The Clerk shall enter a separate

order of dismissal.
SO ORDERED.
September 18, 2014
DATE

/s/ Indira Talwani
INDIRA TALWANI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3