Cain V Balcarcel

Filing 3

OPINION and ORDER Summarily Dismissing Petition. Signed by District Judge Thomas L. Ludington. (KWin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION

BRANDON CAIN, # 490544
Plaintiff,
Case Number 17-11852
Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

v.
ERICK BALCARCEL,
Defendants.
________________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING PETITION
Plaintiff Brandon Cain is a state inmate currently confined at the St. Louis Correctional
Facility. On June 7, 2017, Plaintiff filed a one-page pleading purporting to be a petition for writ
of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See ECF No. 1. Because Petitioner’s filing does not
comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3, or Rules 2(c) and (d) of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, the matter will be dismissed without
prejudice.
I.
Upon the filing of a habeas corpus petition, the court must promptly examine the petition
to determine “if it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that
the petitioner is not entitled to relief.” See Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 cases. If the
court determines that the petitioner is not entitled to relief, the court shall summarily dismiss the
petition. See McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994) (“Federal courts are authorized to
dismiss summarily any habeas petition that appears legally insufficient on its face”). A petition
may be summarily dismissed where the allegations are so vague or conclusory that they do not

“point to a real possibility of constitutional error.” Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 76 (1977)
(internal citations omitted). “[A] claim for relief in habeas corpus must include reference to a
specific federal constitutional guarantee, as well as a statement of the facts which entitle the
Petitioner to relief.” Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152, 162-63 (1996) (internal citations
omitted). See also Perez v. Hemingway, 157 F. Supp. 2d 790, 796 (E.D. Mich. 2001) (“A petition
for a writ of habeas corpus must set forth facts that give rise to a cause of action under federal
law or it may summarily be dismissed.”).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3 explains that “[a] civil action is commenced by filing a
complaint.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 3. The Supreme Court has held that, “[t]he logical conclusion,
therefore, is that a habeas suit begins with the filing of an application for habeas corpus relief —
the equivalent of a complaint in an ordinary civil case.” Woodford v. Garceau, 538 U.S. 202, 208
(2003). Rules 2(c) and (d) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provide that an
application for writ of habeas corpus shall be in the form of a petition which specifies each
ground for relief. Petitioner’s filing does not indicate the convictions Petitioner seeks to attack,
nor does it state any claims or grounds for relief. The petition is therefore subject to summary
dismissal without prejudice.
II.
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22 provides that an appeal may not proceed unless a
certificate of appealability (“COA”) is issued under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. A COA may be issued
“only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A petitioner must show “that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or,
for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that
the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v.

-2-

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (citation omitted). In this case, the Court concludes that
reasonable jurists would not debate the conclusion that the petition should be dismissed without
prejudice. A certificate of appealability will therefore be denied. Petitioner will also be denied
leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, because any appeal of this order could not be taken
in good faith.
III.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Petitioner Cain’s Petition, ECF No. 1, is
SUMMARILY DISMISSED without prejudice.
It is further ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
It is further ORDERED that leave to appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED.

s/Thomas L. Ludington
THOMAS L. LUDINGTON
United States District Judge
Dated: June 21, 2017

PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served
upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first
class U.S. mail on June 21, 2017.
s/Kelly Winslow
KELLY WINSLOW, Case Manager

-3-