Opinion
2: 10-cv-00189-PMP-RJJ.
June 18, 2010
ORDER
This is a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in which petitioner, a state prisoner, is proceeding pro se. Petitioner has paid the filing fee in this action. Respondents filed a motion to dismiss this petition on May 6, 2010. (Docket #6.)
On May 14, 2010, petitioner filed a motion for summary judgment. (Docket #11.) Summary judgment is a procedural device available for prompt and expeditious disposition of controversy without trial when there is no dispute as to material fact. Petitioner has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. "[T]he writ of habeas corpus is not a proceeding in the original criminal prosecution but an independent civil suit." Riddle v. Dyche, 262 U.S. 333, 335-336, 43 S.Ct. 555, 555 (1923); See, e.g. Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 14, 112 S.Ct. 1715, 1722 (1992) (O'Connor, J., dissenting). Modern habeas corpus procedure has the same function as an ordinary appeal. Anderson v. Butler, 886 F.2d 111, 113 (5th Cir. 1989); O'Neal v. McAnnich, 513 U.S. 440, 442, 115 S.Ct. 992 (1995) (federal court's function in habeas corpus proceedings is to "review errors in state criminal trials"(emphasis omitted)). In a habeas proceeding, petitioner does not proceed to "trial." Therefore, the motion for summary judgment is improper. For all practical purposes, summary judgment is equivalent to the court's making a determination on the merits of a habeas petition. As the court will rule on the petition for writ of habeas corpus in due course, a motion for summary judgment in a habeas proceeding serves no purpose. Accordingly, the request for summary judgment will be denied.
On May 24, 2010, petitioner filed a pleading entitled, "Motion of Preliminary Proceedings of Prosecutorial Discretion and Restorative Justice." (Docket #13.) This pleading has no basis in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and presents no discernable legal issue. It will therefore be denied as frivolous.
On May 24, 2010, petitioner filed a motion to amend. (Docket #14.) In that motion, petitioner provides no explanation as to how or why he wishes to amend his petition. Petitioner also makes meaningless references to paying a $350 filing fee. No such fee exists in this case. Petitioner has already paid the $5.00 filing fee in this action. Petitioner's motion to amend with therefore be denied as meritless.
On May 24, petitioner filed a motion for a stay. (Docket #15.) In that motion, petitioner does not explain what kind of stay he wants or why he wants it. Petitioner's motion will therefore be denied as meritless.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner's motion for summary judgment (Docket #11) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's motion of preliminary proceedings of prosecutorial discretion and restorative justice (Docket #13) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's motion to amend (Docket #14) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's motion to stay (Docket #15) is DENIED.