Reddman v. Barton et al

Filing 3

OPINION and ORDER dismissing 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and denying Certificate of Appealability. Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (MBea)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

RICHARD JEROME REDDMANN,
Case Number: 2:15-CV-12358
HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

Petitioner,
v.
MARIA I. BARTON,
Respondent.
/

OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND
DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Petitioner Richard Jerome Reddmann filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus.
Reddmann is not in custody, nor does he identify the conviction he challenges. The
petition, therefore, will be dismissed.
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.” 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. 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

-1-

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.”).
II.
The pending habeas petition will be dismissed under Rule 4 on two grounds.
First, Reddmann fails to satisfy 28 U.S.C. § 2254's “in custody” requirement. “For a
federal court to have jurisdiction to grant a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under §
2254, a petitioner must be ‘in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court.’”
Steverson v. Summers, 258 F.3d 520, 522 (6th Cir. 2001), citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).
See also Lackawanna County Dist. Attorney v. Coss, 532 U.S. 394, 401 (2001). The
custody requirement preserves the extraordinary nature of habeas corpus relief which
historically “has been limited to cases of special urgency” involving “severe restraints on
individual liberty.” Hensley v. Municipal Court, 411 U.S. 345, 351 (1973). Courts
determine whether a person is “in custody” at the time the petition is filed. Carafas v.
LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 238 (1968). It is not clear that Reddmann was ever convicted
of any offense, but, to the extent he was, he is not currently in custody. Accordingly, the
Court lacks jurisdiction over his habeas petition.
In the alternative, even assuming Reddmann does satisfy the “in custody”
requirement, his complaint is subject to summary dismissal because he fails to identify
-2-

the conviction(s) challenged in the petition or the jurisdiction in which he was charged.
The Court will not guess what conviction Reddmann might be challenging. The petition
is subject to summary dismissal on this basis.
III.
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. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000) (citation omitted).
In this case, the Court concludes that reasonable jurists would not debate the
Court’s conclusion that the petition should be summarily dismissed without prejudice.
Therefore, the Court denies a certificate of appealability.
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for writ of habeas
corpus [dkt. # 1] is DISMISSED.
It is further ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
Dated: July 14, 2015
s/George Caram Steeh
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
July 14, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail and also
Richard Reddmann, P.O. Box 4, Wolverine, MI 49799.
s/Barbara Radke
Deputy Clerk

-4-