Opinion
NO. 3:12-CV-79 (CAR)
07-02-2012
MICHAEL ALONZA RUFUS, Petitioner, v. Warden RALPH KEMP, Respondent.
ORDER
On June 27, 2012, this Court dismissed without prejudice pro se Petitioner MICHAEL ALONZA RUFUS' petition for writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 10). Before the Court are Petitioner's "Motion for Disqualification and/or Recusal of Judge(s)" (Doc. 12) and "Motion to Amend Jurisdiction" (Doc. 13), both received by this Court on June 27, 2012. Petitioner obviously submitted his motions prior to his receipt of the Court's Order of dismissal. The instant case is now closed. Even if Petitioner had submitted his motions prior to dismissal of this case, the Court would deny both motions.
In the first motion, Petitioner contends that the undersigned should recuse himself from this action. Petitioner has alleged no facts, however, other than his dissatisfaction with this Court's prior rulings, supporting his assertion that the undersigned is biased or otherwise should not handle this case.
In his second motion, Petitioner asks that he be allowed to "amend his jurisdictional statement from 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2283-84," that his "state court conviction be enjoined/stayed by preliminary and permanent injunctions," and that a three-judge panel adjudicate the instant case. Section 2283, which is known as the Anti-Injunction Act and thus restricts this Court's authority to enjoin state court proceedings, provides no cause of action to Petitioner. Instead, as explained in this Court's June 27th Order, Petitioner must seek habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after he has exhausted his state court remedies available with respect to his conviction. Moreover, section 2284 provides for a three-judge panel only in limited circumstances, not including habeas proceedings. See e.g., Collier v. United States, 2009 WL 2184820 (E.D. Tenn. July 17, 2009).
In light of the foregoing, Petitioner's motions are hereby DENIED.
______________
C. ASHLEY ROYAL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
cr