Cook v. McFadden
ORDER adopting 19 Report and Recommendation and dismissing the petition without prejudice. A certificate of appealability is denied. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 4/4/2017. (mwal)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Civil Action No. 1:16-3853-RMG
ORDER AND OPINION
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge, recommending the petition for habeas reliefbe summarily dismissed without prejudice. For
the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation and dismisses the
petition without prejudice.
Petitioner was convicted of murder, kidnapping, armed robbery, and grand larceny by the
Florence County Court of General Sessions in 1981 and 1982. He is serving a life sentence.
Petitioner filed the present petition for habeas relief on December 8, 2016. His 145-page filing
asserts no grounds for relief from his conviction or sentence. Nor does it provide any details of
his case's appellate or post-conviction ("PCR") relief history. Instead, Petitioner challenges the
disposition of Civil Action Numbers 8:14-3555-RBH-JDA, 4:16-2939-MBS-TER, 4:16-3101
MBS-TER, 0: 16-922-TMC-PJG, 4: 16-cv-3807-MBS-TER, 8: 16-3194-RBH-JDA, 8: 16-3327
RBH-JDA, and 8:16-3328-RBH-TER.
He also requests the Court to reinstate Lawrence L.
Crawford's cases; to consolidate this case with others; to remove state cases into this case;
disqualify several state and federal court judges (alleging, inter alia, that "the judges in the District
Court considered to detach my case from Crawford, the their [unclear], King-Khalifah of the (4)
Global Thrones of the Reestablished Global Theocratic State"); to transfer this action and other
cases before this Court to New Jersey; to transfer Petitioner and his property to a prerelease camp;
to vacate his conviction and sentenced; and to remove his name and DNA "from all derogatory
On February 28, 2017, the Magistrate Judge recommended summary dismissal of the
petition because it fails to set forth grounds for relief. (Dkt. No. 19.) On March 13,2017, Petitioner
sought an extension in which to file objections, claiming that he was scheduled for surgery for
cancer and a urological condition. (Dkt. No. 21.) The Court granted a six-week extension on
March 14, 2017. (Dkt. No. 22.) Nonetheless, on March 31,2017, the Court received Petitioner's
"affidavit of facts giving judicial notice," stating, inter alia, "Demon Dogs!!! Stop your fraud"
and "You are in breach of the trust and contract by your actions in violation of Article I section 10
ofthe U.S. Constitution impairing the obligation ofcontract which require the order to be vacated."
(Dkt. No. 24.)1
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the
Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is
made. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Petitioner's objections refer to an order of the "Florence Court" received on March 24, 2017.
That appears to be the Florence County Court of Common Plea's dismissal on March 23, 2017 of
Petitioner's PCR application. Petitioner had a previous PCR application dismissed on February
20,2013. He may have had other PCR applications dismissed as well since his convictions date
from 1981 and 1982.
A habeas petitioner must specify all grounds for relief available to the petitioner and state
facts supporting each ground. See Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 655-56 (2005). He may not
simply incorporate briefs in other cases by reference. See Hinton v. Trans Union, LLC, 654 F.
Supp. 2d 440,446-47 (E.D. Va. 2009) (finding excessive incorporation by reference in a pleading
creates unnecessary confusion); see also Tet; v. Bender, 507 F.3d 50, 60 (1st Cir. 2007). The Court
therefore agrees with the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that the petition be summarily
dismissed because Petitioner fails to provide information sufficient to ascertain the grounds he
asserts for habeas relief. Cf Peyatt v. Holland, No. 85-6488, 1987 WL 35854 (4th Cir. Feb. 4,
Further, the Court is aware that author of this patently frivolous petition is the author of
several thousand pages of frivolous filings in Muquit v. McFadden, 8:14-3555-RBH-JDA
(D.S.C.), Sutcliffe v. Cain, 4:16-2939-MBS-TER (D.S.C.), Cook v. Cain,4:16-3101-MBS-TER
(D.S.C.), Sutcliffe v.
Supreme Court, 0:16-922-TMC-PJG (D.S.C.), Bellamy v. Warden,
Lieber CI, 4:16-cv-3807-RMG-TER (D.S.C.), Muquit v. The Judges Who Issue Order in Case 16
1953, 8:16-3194-RBH-JDA (D.S.C.), Cookv. The Judges Who Issue Order in Case 16-1953, 8:16
3327-RBH-JDA (D.S.C.), Crawford v. The Judges Who Issue Order in Case 16-1953, 8: 16-3328
RBH-TER (D.S.C.), Bellamy v. Parties listed in case 8:16-cv-3320, 4:17-445 (D.S.C.), and In re
Lawrence Crawford, 17-1415 (4th Cir.), as well as many cases in South Carolina state courts. The
present petition is an effort by that unidentified litigant to pursue claims rejected or pending in
those actions, rather than a proper petition challenging Mr. Cook's conviction or sentence under
28 U.S.c. § 2254 (indeed, on the petition form Petitioner crossed-out "2254" and wrote in "writ
of error" and "1983").
For the foregoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 19) as the Order of the Court and DISMISSES WITHOUT
PREJUDICE the petition.
Certificate of Appealability
The governing law provides that:
(c)(2) A certificate of appealability may issue ... only if the applicant has made a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
(c)(3) The certificate of appealability ... shall indicate which specific issue or
issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). A prisoner satisfies the standard by demonstrating that reasonable
jurists would find this court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong and that
any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,484 (2000); Rose v. Lee,
252 F.3d 676,683 (4th Cir. 2001). In this case, the legal standard for the issuance of a certificate
of appealability has not been met. Therefore, a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Court Judge
April }j, 2017
Charleston, South Carolina
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?