Smith v. Jackson et al

Filing 2

ORDER Dismissing 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Declining to Issue a Certificate of Appealability. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

DERRICK LEE SMITH,
Case No. 16-cv-12660
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

Petitioner,
v.
SHANE JACKSON et al,
Respondents.
/

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (ECF
#1) AND DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Upon the filing of a habeas corpus petition, a federal 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.

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”). The petition filed here is subject to summary dismissal.
On July 7, 20176, Michigan state inmate Derrick Lee Smith (“Smith”)
filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (the “Petition”).
(See ECF #1.) Rather than challenging the fact or duration of his confinement,

Smith challenges restrictions placed upon his communications with an inmate
presently in the custody of the Florida Department of Corrections. (See id.) Smith
says that these restrictions violate his “constitutional right to communicate.” (Id. at
2, Pg. ID 2.)
A petition for a writ of habeas corpus provides the appropriate vehicle for
challenging the fact or duration of a prisoner’s confinement.

See Preiser v.

Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 486-87 (1973). Smith, however, is not challenging the
fact or duration of his confinement. Indeed, he raises no challenge to his criminal
conviction or sentence. Instead, he challenges restrictions placed on his ability to
write letters to an inmate in the custody of the Florida Department of Corrections.
Because Smith is not challenging the fact or duration of his confinement, the
Petition is not properly filed under § 2254 and will be summarily dismissed.
Moreover, because the Court concludes that reasonable jurists would not debate
the conclusion that the Petition does not state a claim upon which habeas relief
may be granted, the Court declines to issue Petitioner a certificate of appealability.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, IT IS ORDERED that the
Petition (ECF #1) is DISMISSED and a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
s/Matthew F. Leitman

Dated: July 27, 2016

MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on July 27, 2016, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

3