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

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.