Coutu v. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS et al

Filing 6

Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: ORDER entered granting 5 Motion for Order Directing Compliance with Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. (Zaleski, Christine)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
__________________________________________
)
DAVID DANIEL COUTU,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
Civil Action No.
v.
)
17-10702-FDS
)
COMMONWEALTH OF
)
MASSACHUSETTS, et al.,
)
)
Respondents.
)
__________________________________________)
ORDER ON RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR AN ORDER
DIRECTING COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 2(c) OF THE
RULES GOVERNING SECTION 2254 CASES
SAYLOR, J.
This is a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus by a prisoner in state custody.
Following a jury trial, petitioner David Daniel Coutu was convicted on August 10, 2007, of
aggravated rape, home invasion, mayhem, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon causing
bodily injury, armed robbery, kidnapping, and attempt to burn personal property. He was
sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 35 to 40 years. He now seeks habeas relief pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Respondents have moved for an order directing compliance with Rule 2(c) of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases. Rule 2(c) states that the petition must:
(1) specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner;
(2) state the facts supporting each ground;
(3) state the relief requested;
(4) be printed, typewritten, or legibly handwritten; and

(5) be signed under penalty of perjury by the petitioner or by a person authorized to
sign it for the petitioner under 28 U.S.C. § 2242.
Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.
Petitioner has filed a petition using the standardized form for a petition under 28 U.S.C. §
2254. However, he has left a critical component of that form blank. Specifically, petitioner
failed to write anything under ¶ 12, which provides a space to state the grounds upon which
habeas relief is requested. Instead, in the margin of the form, he wrote, “[t]he issue I want
Raised, SEE: ATTACHED Paper.” However, no attachments were filed with the form petition.
Based on the petition filed, the Court cannot understand the nature of petitioner’s claims.
Accordingly, the petition fails to adhere to the requirements of Rule 2(c) in multiple respects.
Rule 12 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases states that the “Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, to the extent that they are not inconsistent with any statutory provisions or these
rules, may be applied to a proceeding under these rules.” The Court will therefore treat
respondent’s motion to order compliance with Rule 2(c) as a motion for a more definite
statement under Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e) (a
party may move for a more definite statement when a pleading is “so vague or ambiguous that
the party cannot reasonably prepare a response”). Accordingly, respondents’ motion will be
granted.
For the foregoing reasons, respondents’ motion for an order directing compliance with
Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases is GRANTED. Plaintiff is hereby
ORDERED to file a more definite statement adhering to the standard-form petition required by
Rule 2(c) within 42 days of this order, on or before July 13, 2016.

2

So Ordered.

/s/ F. Dennis Saylor
F. Dennis Saylor IV
United States District Judge

Dated: June 1, 2017

3