Wilson v. Thorton
Filing
3
ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Court declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability. Petitioner's Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is GRANTED for the limited purpose of this Court's review. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 05/31/17. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(emw) Modified text on 5/31/2017 (emw).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:17cv133-FDW
DAVID MICHAEL WILSON,
Petitioner,
vs.
CYNTHIA D. THORTON,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER
Respondents.
)
____________________________________)
THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Petitioner David Michael Wilson’s pro se
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1.) Also before the
Court is Petitioner’s Motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 2.)
Petitioner is a prisoner of the State of North Carolina. He filed the instant habeas Petition
on May 19, 2017.
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts
directs district courts to examine habeas petitions promptly. Rule 4, 28 U.S.C.A. foll. § 2254.
When it plainly appears from any such petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not
entitled to relief, the reviewing court must dismiss the petition. Id.
Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires a Petitioner to specify all
the grounds for relief available to him and to state the facts that support each ground for relief.
Rule 2(c), 28 U.S.C.A. foll. § 2254. Petitioner has done neither. The Petition merely lists a
partial procedural history of Petitioner’s state proceedings. It is, therefore, impossible for the
Court to determine whether Petitioner is entitled to any relief.
The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus shall be dismissed without prejudice. Should
1
Petitioner wish to file a § 2254 habeas petition in the future, he must specify grounds for relief
and state the facts that support each ground for relief or risk having his habeas petition dismissed
a second time for failing to supply enough information to survive initial review.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1.
The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. No.
1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;
2.
Petitioner’s Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is GRANTED for
the limited purpose of this Court's review;
3.
Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the Court
declines to issue a certificate of appealability as Petitioner has not made a
substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2);
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003) (in order to satisfy § 2253(c),
a petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s
assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong); Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 474, 484 (2000) (holding that when relief is denied on procedural
grounds, a petitioner must establish both that the correctness of the dispositive
procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatably valid claim
of the denial of a constitutional right).
Signed: May 31, 2017
2
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?