From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Headen v. North Carolina

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
Jul 8, 2013
1:13CV124 (M.D.N.C. Jul. 8, 2013)

Opinion

1:13CV124

07-08-2013

WALTER DORSETT HEADEN, JR. Petitioner, v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent.


ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of North Carolina, has submitted a document entitled "Affidavit In Lieu of Expatriation" in which he states that he is acting pursuant to "U.S.C. 2254(c)," among other statutes, and that he seeks his release from state custody. Even though Petitioner has not used the correct forms for a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, it appears that Petitioner seeks to attack his state court criminal conviction. The document he has filed is not a recognizable method for achieving this goal. Instead, the proper avenue for such an attack is ordinarily a petition for habeas corpus. For this reason, the Court will construe the submission as a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in state custody. For the following reasons, the Petition cannot be further processed.

1. Filing fee was not received, nor was an affidavit to proceed in forma pauperis submitted and signed by Petitioner.
2. Petitioner has not used the required § 2254 Forms. Rule 2, R. Gov. § 2254 Cases. The Clerk will forward to Petitioner the proper forms.

Because of these pleading failures, the Petition will be filed and then dismissed, without prejudice to Petitioner filing a new petition on the proper habeas corpus forms with the $5.00 filing fee, or a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis, and otherwise correcting the defects noted. To further aid Petitioner, the Clerk is instructed to send Petitioner a new application to proceed in forma pauperis, new § 2254 forms, and instructions for filing a § 2254 petition, which Petitioner should follow.

Because Petitioner's submission is being dismissed without prejudice and is not being decided on its merits, this case will not count as a first petition which would later trigger the prohibitions against second or successive petitions found in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). However, if Petitioner chooses to later submit a § 2254 petition that conforms with this Order and Recommendation, he should be aware that he is normally entitled to have only one § 2254 petition decided on its merits. Second or successive petitions are barred from consideration by this Court unless a petitioner first receives permission from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to file such a petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). That permission is granted only in very narrow circumstances. Because of this, Petitioner should act carefully in resubmitting a petition. See generally Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375 (2003). If Petitioner wishes to challenge his conviction, he must use the § 2254 forms supplied by the Court, include all of the claims for relief he wishes to raise, and closely follow the instructions provided. Petitioner may also choose not to submit a petition. Finally, if Petitioner wants a form of relief other than relief from his conviction or sentence, he should make that clear in any new submission and should state that he is not seeking to attack his conviction or sentence. He should not use the § 2254 forms in that instance.

In forma pauperis status will be granted for the sole purpose of entering this Order and Recommendation of dismissal with permission to file a new petition which corrects the defects of the present Petition.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that in forma pauperis status is granted for the sole purpose of entering this Order and Recommendation. The Clerk is instructed to send Petitioner § 2254 forms, instructions, and a current application to proceed in forma pauperis.

IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be construed as a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and dismissed sua sponte without prejudice to Petitioner filing a new petition which corrects the defects of the current Petition. The new petition must be accompanied by either the five dollar filing fee or a current application to proceed in forma pauperis.

Joi Elizabeth Peake

United States Magistrate Judge


Summaries of

Headen v. North Carolina

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
Jul 8, 2013
1:13CV124 (M.D.N.C. Jul. 8, 2013)
Case details for

Headen v. North Carolina

Case Details

Full title:WALTER DORSETT HEADEN, JR. Petitioner, v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

Date published: Jul 8, 2013

Citations

1:13CV124 (M.D.N.C. Jul. 8, 2013)