Embrey v. Cauley, No. 0:2009cv00010 - Document 3 (E.D. Ky. 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: (1) William J.R. Embrey's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED; and (2) this action is DISMISSED, sua sponte, and judgment shall be entered contemporaneously with this Memorandum Opinion and Order in favor of the Respondent.. Signed by Judge Henry R. Wilhoit, Jr on 02/11/09.(MSH)cc: COR
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION OR CITATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY NORTHERN DIVISION at ASHLAND CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-CV-010-HRW WILLIAM J.R. EMBREY VS: PETITIONER MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER E.K. CAULEY, Warden RESPONDENT ** ** ** ** ** William J.R. Embrey, an individual currently in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons ( BOP ) and confined in the Federal Correctional Institution in Ashland, Kentucky, has paid the District Court filing fee and submitted a Petition for Writ of Habeas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This matter is before the Court for the screening of the Petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2243; Harper v. Thoms, 2002 WL 31388736, *1 (6th Cir. 2002). As Embrey is appearing pro se, his Petition is held to less stringent standards than those drafted by attorneys. Burton v. Jones, 321 F.3d 569, 573 (6th Cir. 2003); Hahn v. Star Bank, 190 F.3d 708, 715 (6th Cir. 1999). During screening, the allegations in his Petition are taken as true and liberally construed in his favor. Urbina v. Thoms, 270 F.3d 292,295 (6th Cir. 2001). But the Court may dismiss the Petition at any time, or make any such disposition as law and justice require, if it determines that the Petition fails to establish adequate grounds for relief. Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 775 (1987). CLAIMS Petitioner claims that his current incarceration is in violation of his rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution: the Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process; the Second Amendment; and the Fourth Amendment. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS Petitioner states that he is by force, involuntarily held by Warden E.K. Cauley . . . [with] invalid and unlawful documents. He presents no more facts. His 6-page petition is best described as a brief treatise on the importance of the Constitution s first eight amendments and the duty of the courts to protect citizens liberty. DISCUSSION Although this Court recognizes that pro se pleadings are to be held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972); Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir.1991), [o]ur duty to be less stringent with pro se complaints does not require us to conjure up unpled allegations. McDonald v. Hall, 610 F.2d 16, 19 (1st Cir.1979) (citation omitted). This Court is not required to create a claim for a litigant. Clark v. Nat'l Travelers Life Ins. Co., 518 F.2d 1167, 1169 (6th Cir.1975). To command otherwise would require the Court to explore exhaustively all potential claims of a pro se plaintiff, [and] would also transform the district court from its legitimate advisory role to the improper role of an advocate seeking out the strongest arguments and most successful strategies for a party. Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir.1985); Shipp v. Richardson, 2008 WL 2358859, *1 (W.D.Ky. 2008) (not reported). Would-be Petitioner Embrey has provided insufficient facts for his cause of action to go forward. When a plaintiff or petitioner generally alleges that he has been deprived of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the federal Constitution and/or laws and/or amendments thereto, 2 but the petitioner/plaintiff nowhere identifies the substance of the alleged deprivation, such conclusory statements are insufficient to state a claim. O'Hara v. Wigginton, 24 F.3d 823, 826 (6th Cir. 1994) (citing See Ana Leon T. v. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, 823 F.2d 928, 930 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 945 (1987)). Accordingly, the Court being advised, IT IS ORDERED as follows: (1) William J.R. Embrey s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED; and (2) this action is DISMISSED, sua sponte, and Judgment shall be entered contemporaneously with this Memorandum Opinion and Order in favor of the Respondent. This February 11, 2009. 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
