Opinion
C. A. 22-4644-MGL-PJG
01-24-2023
Lorenzo J. Ramsey, Petitioner, v. Sumter School District 2 Office; Sumter County Chamber of Commerce; Sumter County Sheriff Office; South Carolina Department of Social Service, Respondents.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
PAIGE J. GOSSETT, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Petitioner Lorenzo J. Ramsey, a self-represented litigant, filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter is before the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c) (D.S.C.). Having reviewed the Petition in accordance with applicable law, the court concludes that it should be summarily dismissed.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
Petitioner filed this action on a standard form petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner claims his constitutional rights have been violated because he was arrested on state charges of unlawful neglect of his children in February 2022 and his children were placed in foster care. Petitioner expressly cites to the Fourth Amendment's Search and Seizure Clause, the Ninth Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. Petitioner is not detained on the state charges and, despite filing this action on a standard form for a habeas corpus petition, the only relief he seeks is to have his children returned to him. Petitioner recently filed a non-habeas civil action in this court against several state and local agencies, raising claims of various constitutional violations and seeking to have his children returned to him. C/A No. 3:22-4108-MGL.
II. Discussion
A. Standard of Review
Under established local procedure in this judicial district, a careful review has been made of the pro se petition filed in this case pursuant to the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. § 2254; the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), Pub. L. No. 104132, 110 Stat. 1214; and in light of the following precedents: Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324-25 (1989); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); Nasim v. Warden, Md. House of Corr., 64 F.3d 951 (4th Cir. 1995) (en banc); Todd v. Baskerville, 712 F.2d 70 (4th Cir. 1983).
This court is required to liberally construe pro se petitions, which are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); King v. Rubenstein, 825 F.3d 206, 214 (4th Cir. 2016). Nonetheless, the requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts which set forth a claim cognizable in a federal district court. See Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 684 (2009) (outlining pleading requirements under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for “all civil actions”).
B. Analysis
The court finds this action is subject to summary dismissal because it is frivolous. Though Petitioner filed this case on a standard form for a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the substance of the petition is duplicative of the non-habeas civil action Petitioner filed that remains pending in this court. Therefore, the instant case should be dismissed as duplicative. See generally Cottle v. Bell, 229 F.3d 1142 (4th Cir. 2000); McWilliams v. State of Colo., 121 F.3d 573, 574 (10th Cir. 1997).
To the extent the Petition can be construed as seeking habeas corpus relief, the case should still be dismissed as frivolous. First, the court construes the Petition as seeking habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 rather than § 2241 because Petitioner is necessarily challenging state criminal charges. See In re Wright, 826 F.3d 774, 783 (4th Cir. 2016) (holding § 2254 is the proper mechanism for challenging custody by state officials). Regardless, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is only available to challenge the legality of the petitioner's custody or detention. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (“[A] district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus [on] 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.”) (emphasis added); see also Plymail v. Mirandy, 8 F.4th 308, 314 (4th Cir. 2021) (stating the “in custody” requirement of § 2254(a) is jurisdictional). Petitioner makes no allegation that he is currently detained by state authorities. Therefore, to the extent petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus to challenge his state charges, the court lacks jurisdiction because Petitioner is not in the custody of state authorities.
III. Conclusion
Accordingly, the court recommends that the instant Petition be dismissed without prejudice and without requiring the Respondent to file a return.
The Petitioner is directed to the important information in the attached “Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation.”
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. “[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.' ” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Robin L. Blume, Clerk
United States District Court
901 Richland Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).