Opinion
Case No.: GJH-16-665
03-28-2016
CHARLES ARNELL SMITH-BEY, AKA CHARLES SMITH, #454503, Petitioner, v. WARDEN OF JESSUP CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION (INC.), Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On March 4, 2016, Charles Arnell Smith-Bey (aka Charles Smith) filed an "Affidavit of Fact Notice of Default Judgment" attacking his state detention and seeking his release from custody. See ECF No. 1. To the extent Smith-Bey challenges the legitimacy of his confinement, his affidavit has been construed as a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Smith-Bey's Petition, addressed to the Warden of the Jessup Correctional Institution, contends that the Warden's Office was previously served with a "Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum" requiring the production of Smith-Bey's body to "test the legality of his detention/imprisonment, or to release him from unlawful imprisonment." ECF No. 1 at 1-2. Smith-Bey contends that the failure to "produce or release" his body "constitutes contractual DEFAULT and grounds for further litigation." Id. (emphasis in original). For the reasons stated herein. Smith-Bey's Petition shall be denied and dismissed with prejudice.
The document is dated February 22, 2016.
I. DISCUSSION
This Petition represents the seventh federal habeas corpus action filed on behalf of or by Smith-Bey in the past year. He challenges his March 27, 2014 "violation of probation" conviction and accompanying five-year sentence imposed by the Circuit Court for Charles County. It appears that Smith-Bey is claiming that the jail administrator is in default for not addressing writs filed and served by Smith-Bey's associates and consequently he should be released from custody.
In five of the six prior Petitions, Smith-Bey raised claims related to his Moorish-American ancestry and the jurisdiction of state authorities to prosecute him. Each Petition was summarily dismissed without prejudice. See Smith-Bey v. Wolfe, No. GJH-15-1915 (D. Md. July 8, 2015): Smith-Bey v. Wolfe, No. GJH-15-1654 (D. Md. June 17, 2015); Smith-Bey v. Wolfe, No. GJH-15-1336 (D. Md. May 29, 2015); Smith-Bey v. Wolfe, No. GJH-15-764 (D. Md. Apr. 24, 2015); Smith-Bey v. Wolfe, No. GJH-15-1067, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52859 (D. Md. Apr. 22, 2015). In Smith-Bey v. Wolfe, No. GJH-15-1915, the Court cautioned that any further Petitions by Smith-Bey raising a challenge to his conviction on grounds of his Moorish-American defense would be decided on the merits. See Order at 4, Smith-Bey v. Wolfe, No. GJH-15-1915 (D. Md. July 8, 2015), ECF No. 3. Nonetheless. Smith-Bey raised similar challenges in a Petition in a subsequent action. See Smith-Bey v. Wolfe, No. GJH-15-2606, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137368 (D. Md. Oct. 6, 2015). That Petition was dismissed with prejudice on October 6, 2015. Id. at *6.
The state court docket shows that Smith-Bey was represented by counsel in his criminal proceeding See State v. Smith, No. 08K10000792 (Charles Cty. Cir. Ct. Mar 27,2014). After a jury trial before Judge Robert C. Nalley, Charles Arnell Smith was convicted of second-degree physical child abuse in the Circuit Court for Charles County, Maryland. On March 27, 2014, he was sentenced to a five-year term. See id. The docket indicates that on July 1, 2015, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland denied Smith-Bey's application for leave to appeal. See id. The docket further shows that a Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum was filed on March 14, 2016. See id.
28 U.S.C. § 2254 requires "a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court [to demonstrate] . . . that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Although previously warned by this Court that only constitutional claims would be subject to review, Smith-Bey has failed to set out colorable claims in support of his challenge to his 2014 Maryland conviction and current confinement.
Habeas corpus relief will be denied. When a district court dismisses a habeas petition, a certificate of appealability may issue "only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating '"that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong,'" Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274, 282, 124 S. Ct. 2562 (2004) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S. Ct. 1595 (2000)), or that "the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further." id. (quoting Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S. Ct. 1029 (2003) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Smith-Bey does not satisfy this standard, and the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.
II. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Smith-Bey's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus shall be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. A separate Order shall be entered in accordance with this Memorandum Opinion. Dated: March 28, 2016
No habeas filing fee accompanied the Affidavit. In light of the dismissal of this case. Smith-Bey shall not be required to cure this deficiency. --------
/s/_________
GEORGE J. HAZEL
United States District Judge