Nolen v. United States of America
Filing
10
OPINION and ORDER Summarily Dismissing Petition Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (CHem)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CLYDE NOLEN,
Petitioner,
v.
Case No. 11-cv-13964
Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
______________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT PREJUDICE
AND DENYING REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AS MOOT
I. INTRODUCTION
This is a habeas-corpus action brought by a Michigan state prisoner under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254. Petitioner Clyde Nolen is a state inmate currently incarcerated by the Michigan
Department of Corrections (MDOC) at the Richard A. Handlon Correctional Facility in Ionia,
Michigan. Pursuant to the MDOC’s website, Nolen was convicted of armed robbery by a
Genesee County Circuit Court jury in 1980 and sentenced to life in prison. For the reasons
stated, the Court will dismiss the petition without prejudice.
II. DISCUSSION
Promptly after the filing of a petition for habeas corpus, the Court must undertake
a preliminary review of the petition to determine whether “it plainly appears from the face
of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the
district court.” Rule 4, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; see 28 U.S.C. § 2243. If so, the
petition must be summarily dismissed. See Allen v. Perini, 26 Ohio Misc. 149, 424 F.2d
134, 141 (6th Cir. 1970) (district court has the duty to “screen out” petitions that lack merit
on their 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).
The allegations in Nolen’s habeas petition are rambling and difficult to understand.
The issues raised are not clearly set forth. Nolen appears to argue that he wants the
armed-robbery conviction taken off his record because he was not allowed an appeal, but
he does not state why he was not allowed an appeal, other than, “[t]hey had a grudge
against me because a white girl bailed me out.” Petition, 3. Nolen also attaches an
“exhibit” to his petition, which appears to be an order regarding the appointment of
appellate counsel, signed and dated August 23, 2011. The relevance of that exhibit is not
explained. Additionally, Nolen has filed the following documents: Complaint [dkt. # 4];
Settlement Request [dkt. # 6]; Addendum [dkt. # 8], and a Letter [dkt. # 9], which also are
rambling and difficult to understand.
Based upon Nolen’s vague and confusing petition, the Court cannot determine the
grounds upon which he seeks habeas-corpus relief. The petition, therefore, is subject to
summary dismissal.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Nolen’s habeas petition [dkt. # 1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Nolen’s “Request for Appointment of Counsel” [dkt.
# 5] is DENIED as moot.
2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Nancy G. Edmunds
Nancy G. Edmunds
United States District Judge
Dated: November 3, 2011
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record
on November 3, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Carol A. Hemeyer
Case Manager
3
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?