Ward v. Frink

Filing 11

ORDER DISMISSING CLAIMS, GRANTING PETITIONER LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED PETITION, AND DIRECTING CLERK TO SEND FORM. Signed by Chief Judge S. Thomas Anderson on 1/17/23. (mbm)

Case 1:22-cv-01170-STA-jay Document 11 Filed 01/17/23 Page 1 of 3

PageID 80

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN DIVISION
RANDALL WARD,
Petitioner,
v.
MARTIN FRINK,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:22-cv-01170-STA-jay

ORDER DISMISSING CLAIMS,
GRANTING PETITIONER LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED PETITION,
AND
DIRECTING CLERK TO SEND FORM
Petitioner Randall Ward has filed an amended pro se habeas corpus petition (the “Amended
Petition”), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1.) The pleading is before the Court for initial
review. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (“Rules”),
Rule 4. For the following reasons, the claims are DISMISSED, and Petitioner is GRANTED
LEAVE to file a second amended petition.
On August 8, 2022, Ward filed his original Petition in this matter. (ECF No. 1.) On
preliminary review of the pleading, the Court dismissed the claims but granted Petitioner leave to
file an amended petition to cure pleading deficiencies. (ECF No. 7.) Ward filed the Amended
Petition on October 12, 2022. The following is a verbatim recitation of his claims:
Claim 1: The Petitioner is currently in the unlawful custody of corporate state
agents in violation of the Constitution, U.S. Codes and U.S. Treaties.
Supporting facts: The Petitioner was held in the unlawful custody of the state
officials prior to the reasonable determination based upon facts that the petitioner
was found guilty and convicted of any “crimes.”

Case 1:22-cv-01170-STA-jay Document 11 Filed 01/17/23 Page 2 of 3

PageID 81

Claim 2: The Petitioner has exhausted the required remedies available in the State Courts
of Tennessee.
Supporting facts: The record clearly shows that the petitioner did exhaust all of the required
remedies available on the state court level and is entitled to habeas relief.
Claim 3: This action is a direct result from a State Court decision that constituted an
unreasonable misapplication of clearly established state & federal law.
Supporting facts: The state officials failed to apply well established state and federal law
which constituted an unreasonable misapplication of established law.
Claim 4: The state court’s decision was based on an unreasonable determination of the
facts in light of the evidence presented.
Supporting facts: In this case, the court’s decision was based upon an unreasonable
determination contrary to the facts and evidence presented before the court.
(ECF No. 8 at 5-10 (headings modified).)
Rule 2 requires a petitioner to state the nature of his claims and present supporting facts.
Rule 2(c). “Dismissal under Habeas Rule 2(c) is appropriate in cases where it is impossible to
determine from the petitioner’s pleadings the exact errors of fact or law raised for adjudication.”
Malone v. Lee, No. 2:17-cv-02913-MSN-tmp, ECF No. 31 at 27 n.7 (W.D. Tenn. May 4, 2020)
(citing Rice v. Warden, No. 1:14-cv-732, 2015 WL 5299421, at *4 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 9, 2015)
(dismissal under Rule 2(c) appropriate where pleadings contain unintelligible and conclusory
allegations and statements) (citations omitted).
Claim 2 does not allege a violation of federal law, but merely asserts that Petitioner has
exhausted his claims. Ground Two therefore does not state a claim and is DISMISSED.
As for the remaining claims, Ward has not provided supporting facts. Instead, he simply
restates each ground’s general assertion. It is therefore not possible to discern the exact errors of
fact or law Petitioner is attempting to raise in Claims 1, 3, and 4. In particular, Ward has not
identified which federal laws, specifically, he believes were violated.

2

Nor has he alleged

Case 1:22-cv-01170-STA-jay Document 11 Filed 01/17/23 Page 3 of 3

PageID 82

supporting facts from which specific violations could be inferred. The claims are therefore not
well-pleaded and are DISMISSED.
Nevertheless, the Court GRANTS Petitioner LEAVE to replead his claims. If he wishes
to do so, he must file a second amended petition on the Court’s form within twenty-eight days of
entry of this order. If additional time is needed to prepare the pleading, Petitioner may file a motion
for an extension of time on or before the due date of the second amended petition. Failure to file
a second amended petition will result in dismissal of the Amended Petition and the case without
further notice.1 The Clerk is DIRECTED to send Petitioner a § 2254 form.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ S. Thomas Anderson
S. THOMAS ANDERSON
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Date: January 17, 2022

 Petitioner is advised that his failure in the second amended petition, if filed, to cure the pleading
deficiencies will likely result in dismissal of the case without further opportunity to replead.  

1

3