YOUNG v. STATE OF MAINE, No. 2:2018cv00475 - Document 10 (D. Me. 2019)

Court Description: REPORT AND RECOMMENDED DECISION re 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by MAURICE YOUNG. Objections to R&R due by 2/15/2019. By MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN C. NIVISON. (MFS)
Download PDF
YOUNG v. STATE OF MAINE Doc. 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE MAURICE YOUNG, Petitioner, v. STATE OF MAINE, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2:18-cv-00475-LEW RECOMMENDED DECISION ON 28 U.S.C. § 2254 PETITION In this action, Petitioner Maurice Young seeks relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Petition, ECF No. 1; Signed Supplemental Petition, ECF No. 4.) 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.” Following the required review, I recommend the Court dismiss the petition without prejudice. A petition for habeas relief from a state court judgment is governed by section 2254(a), which states: The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. Dockets.Justia.com Rule 2 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases sets forth the form requirements the petition must satisfy, including that it must “specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner;” it must “state the facts supporting each ground;” and it must “state the relief requested.” Petitioner evidently alleges he is in custody due to a contempt-of-court judgment issued by the state court during a criminal proceeding. (Petition at 1; Signed Supplemental Petition at 1.) Petitioner, however, does not allege any grounds for habeas relief; he does not state the facts in support of the petition; and he does not state the relief requested. Given that Petitioner has failed to allege any facts that would support a claim for habeas relief, the Court concludes that it plainly appears from the petition that Petitioner cannot demonstrate he is entitled to relief. See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Accordingly, dismissal is appropriate. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing analysis, an evidentiary hearing is not warranted under Rule 8 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Unless Petitioner amends the petition within the time for objections to this recommended decision (14 days), I recommend the Court dismiss without prejudice Petitioner’s petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and that the Court deny a certificate of appealability pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases because there is no substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 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. A responsive memorandum shall be filed within fourteen (14) days after the filing of the objection. 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 1st day of February, 2019. 3