PELLETIER v. COLLIER COUNTY STATE OF FLORIDA, No. 1:2022cv00423 - Document 2 (D. Me. 2023)
Court Description: REPORT AND RECOMMENDED DECISION re 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Objections to R&R due by 1/24/2023. By MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN C. NIVISON. (MFS)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
PELLETIER v. COLLIER COUNTY STATE OF FLORIDA Doc. 2 Case 1:22-cv-00423-JDL Document 2 Filed 01/10/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE ROLAND PELLETIER, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Petitioner v. COLLIER COUNTY STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent 1:22-cv-00423-JDL RECOMMENDED DECISION ON 28 U.S.C. § 2254 PETITION Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Petition, ECF No. 1.) Petitioner alleges that he is in custody at the Brevard County Jail in Cocoa, Florida. He is evidently serving a Florida state court sentence. Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, upon the filing of a petition, the Court must conduct a preliminary review of the petition, and “must dismiss” the petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” See McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994) (“Federal courts are authorized to dismiss summarily any habeas petition that appears legally insufficient on its face. . .”). Following the required review, I recommend the Court dismiss the matter. DISCUSSION “District courts are limited to granting habeas relief ‘within their respective jurisdictions.’” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 442 (2004) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:22-cv-00423-JDL Document 2 Filed 01/10/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 19 2241(a)). This language has been interpreted “to require ‘nothing more than that the court issuing the writ have jurisdiction over the custodian.’” Id. (quoting Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 495 (1973)). “The plain language of the habeas statute . . . confirms the general rule that for core habeas petitions challenging present physical confinement, jurisdiction lies only in one district: the district of confinement.” Id. at 443. Because Petitioner is not in custody in this District and because Petitioner does not challenge the validity of a District of Maine conviction, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the petition. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing analysis, I recommend the Court dismiss the petition without prejudice. I further recommend that the Court deny a certificate of appealability, because there is no substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). NOTICE A party may file objections to those specified portions of a magistrate judge’s report or proposed findings or recommended decisions entered pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) for which de novo review by the district court is sought, together with a supporting memorandum, within fourteen (14) days of being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to de novo review by the district court and to appeal the district court's order. /s/ John C. Nivison U.S. Magistrate Judge Dated this 10th day of January, 2023. 2
]]>
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.
