Fields v. Warden Franklin Medical Center

Filing 12

ORDER denying 11 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge James L Graham on 10/29/14. (jlg1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
GERALD D. FIELDS,
Petitioner,
vs.

Civil Action 2:14-cv-1694
Judge Graham
Magistrate Judge King

WARDEN, FRANKLIN MEDICAL CENTER,
Respondent.

ORDER
This habeas corpus action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 was dismissed,
pursuant to the provisions of Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section
2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, for failure to state
a claim for relief. Report and Recommendation, ECF 3; Order, ECF 6;
Judgment, ECF 7. This matter is now before the Court on petitioner’s
motion to reconsider that dismissal.

Motion for Reconsideration, ECF

11.
The Petition alleged, “Violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments. No substantive law of record filed in this matter.” Id. at
PAGEID# 8. In dismissing the action, the Court reasoned that the
Petition contained no factual allegations demonstrating that
petitioner is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws of
the United States. Order, ECF 6 (citing Rule 2(c) of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts). In
his Motion for Reconsideration, petitioner insists that he alleged “a
violation of federal constitutional law, ie, Fourth Amendment, and

1

federal remedial law ie, the Fourteenth Amendment.” Motion for
Reconsideration, PAGEID# 59. Petitioner also contends that he “makes
the specific reference to the lack of state substantive law (Fourth
Amendment) invoked for federal jurisdiction, or any other due process
provided by law.”

Id. at PAGEID# 60. Petitioner seems to take the

position that it is now respondent’s obligation to show “the true
cause of petitioner’s detention.”

Id.

A valid petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
must state “the facts supporting each ground. . . .”

Rule 2(c) of the

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts. It is insufficient to merely refer to the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution without
alleging the specific facts that give rise to a constitutional
violation. Petitioner has alleged no such facts.
The Motion for Reconsideration, ECF 11, is therefore DENIED.
Date: October 29, 2014

_______s/James L. Graham____
James L. Graham
United States District Judge

2