Blackmon v. State of Tennessee

Filing 5

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO MODIFY THE DOCKET AND SEND FORM, DENYING PETITIONER'S EMERGENCY MOTION, AND DIRECTING PETITIONER TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 4 . Signed by Judge S. Thomas Anderson on 5/8/24. (skc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN DIVISION

ALEXANDER BLACKMON,
Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF TENNESSEE
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:23-cv-01102-STA-jay

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO MODIFY THE DOCKET AND SEND FORM,
DENYING PETITIONER’S EMERGENCY MOTION, AND DIRECTING PETITIONER
TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Petitioner Alexander Blackmon filed a pro se habeas corpus petition on May 31, 2023.
(ECF No. 1.) On June 20, 2023, Petitioner filed an amended petition (“the Amended Petition”).
(ECF No. 3.) The Amended Petition seeks relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Id. at PageID 17.)
The Amended Petition is before the Court on preliminary review. See Rule 4 of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (“Habeas Rules”) (applicable
to petitions under § 2241 pursuant to Rule 1(b)).
Petitioner challenges the imposition of his state-court sentences and his custody under a
state-court judgment.1 (Id. at PageID 17.)

According to Petitioner, he received two eight-year

sentences of probation after pleading guilty to unspecified drug charges.2

(Id. at PageID 20.)

1

A search of the Tennessee Department of Correction Felony Offender Information
website returned two individuals named “Alexander Blackmon,” but the identifying information
for those offenders does not match the information Petitioner provides in the Amended Petition.
See https://foil.app.tn.gov/foil/results.jsp (last accessed May 8, 2024).)
2

The Clerk is DIRECTED to modify the docket to record Jonathan Skrmetti, Tennessee
Attorney General, as Respondent, and terminate the State of Tennessee as a party to this action.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).

He claims that his sentences are unlawful because he was never charged or indicted for any crime.
(Id. at PageID 17.)

Petitioner also raises various claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

(Id. at PageID 18-19.)

He also requests monetary damages of $1,000,000,000 and injunctive

relief. (ECF No. 4 at PageID 39-40.)
Although Petitioner requests relief under § 2241, his claims are subject to review under
28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Saulsberry v. Lee, 937 F.3d 644, 647 (6th Cir. 2019) (explaining that
“§ 2254 is the exclusive vehicle of habeas relief for prisoners in custody under a state judgment”)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); see also Rittenberry v. Morgan, 468 F.3d 331,
337 (6th Cir. 2006) (holding that “all petitions seeking relief from state court convictions are . . .
specifically filed under [§] 2254”) (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted)).
A § 2254 petition filed by a person in state custody “must substantially follow either the
form appended to [the Habeas Rules] or a form prescribed by a local district-court rule.” Habeas
Rule 2(d). This district uses the form published by the Administrative Office of the United States
Courts. Petitioner did not use the official form, and as a result, did not provide certain information
that is relevant to the Court’s preliminary review.
Further, under § 2254, a petitioner may seek habeas relief “on the ground that he is in
custody in violation of the Constitution or law or treaties of the United States.” § 2254(a).
Habeas corpus proceedings, therefore, inquire only into the legality of a petitioner’s detention, and
“the only judicial relief authorized is the discharge of the prisoner or his admission to bail” if the
court finds that his detention is unlawful. Hart v. Ohio Bureau of Prob. & Parole, 290 F.2d 550,
551 (6th Cir. 1961) (per curiam). This means that a petitioner cannot use the writ to “invoke

2

judicial determination of questions which do not affect the lawfulness of the custody of the
detention.”

Id.

Accordingly, Petitioner cannot seek relief inappropriate in habeas corpus

proceedings, such as monetary damages and injunctive relief.
Petitioner is ORDERED to file an amended petition that substantially follows the district’s
official § 2254 form no later than 28 days from the date this Order is entered. Any amended
petition should identify all grounds for relief available to Petitioner and state the facts supporting
each ground. See Habeas Rule 2(c). Failure to file an amended petition will result in the
dismissal of Petitioner’s pro se motions and the case without further notice for failure to prosecute
under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail
Petitioner the official § 2254 form and make a notation on the docket of the date of mailing.
Petitioner has also filed an Emergency Motion to Render Decision, asking the Court to rule
on his habeas petition because the State of Tennessee has not filed an answer. (ECF No. 4.) This
motion is DENIED as premature given that the Court has ordered Petitioner to file an amended
petition and because the Court has yet to order Respondent to file an answer or a response in this
case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ S. Thomas Anderson
S. THOMAS ANDERSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Date: May 8, 2024

3