Opinion
Civil Action 00-0431-RV-S
July 13, 2000
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner, who is proceeding pro se, filed a handwritten petition for habeas corpus relief (Docs. 1 2). This action was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.2 (c)(4) for appropriate action. It is recommended that the petition be dismissed pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.
I. Nature of Proceedings.
Prior to the present petition being filed, Petitioner has assailed this Court with countless unintelligible documents which the Court would return to her with an order informing her that her documents were deficient. Petitioner would usually return the order and documents with her next filing. On February 28, 2000, the Court received a document titled "Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus," which indicated that Petitioner had undergone an involuntary commitment hearing in state court and had been placed in Daphne Poundstone for treatment, which included the administration of medication. On March 1, 2000, the Court returned this document to Petitioner along with her documents dated February 24, 2000, which concerned the commitment proceedings scheduled for February 25, 2000.
On March 20, 2000, the Court's order dated March 1, 2000, was returned to the Court with Petitioner's motion for reconsideration inscribed on the order. In addition to returning the Court's order of March 1, 2000, and the documents previously received by the Court on February 24 and 28, 2000, Petitioner included a letter from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals advising her that it lacks jurisdiction over her matter and an order dismissing her action in Civil Action No. 99-0921-AH-M. In response to these documents, the Court issued an order on March 31, 2000, advising Petitioner that she had not paid the $5.00 filing fee for a habeas petition or filed a motion to proceed without prepayment of fees and that she had not present a coherent habeas petition on the proper form.
The Court has attached to the recommendation a copy of Petitioner's documents to which the Court refers, except for the Eleventh Circuit's letter and the order of dismissal, and the pertinent deficiency orders.
In response to the Court's last deficiency order, the order dated March 31, 2000, Petitioner paid the $5.00 filing fee and filed "Motion for Certiorari" (Doc. 1) and "Motion to Proceed With the Filing Fee" (Doc. 2). The Court construes these documents to be a petition for the writ of habeas corpus seeking review by this Court of Petitioner's involuntary commitment proceedings. The petition, however, lacks clarity and does not convey a specific ground upon which Petitioner contends that her involuntary commitment is unconstitutional. Moreover, the Court notes that Petitioner indicates in Documents 3 and 4 that she has been released from confinement.
Even though Local Rule 83.9(d)(1) and Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts requires that the petition be on an approved form, the Court nonetheless will address Petitioner's petition.
II. Discussion.
"Habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy . . . [to] attack . . . the validity of the fact or length of . . . confinement[.]" Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 490, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 1836, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973); accord Powell v. Florida, 579 F.2d 324 (5th Cir. 1978) (recognizing that habeas corpus relief is available to challenge a commitment to a mental institution). The chief purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to release a person from incarceration. Id. at 494, 500, 93 S.Ct. at 1838, 1841. Habeas corpus relief is available under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to a person who is challenging his or her "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." However, habeas corpus relief generally will not issue unless state court remedies have been exhausted. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (b)(1)(A); see Preiser, 411 U.S. at 491-98, 93 S.Ct. at 1837-40 ("[C]omity . . . require[s] giving the States the first opportunity to correct the[ir] errors[.]"); accord Chancery Clerk of Chickasaw County, Miss. v. Wallace, 646 F.2d 151, 155-56 (5th Cir. Unit A Mar. 1981) (recognizing that a habeas challenge to a mental commitment must be exhausted through the state courts); Bishop v. Medical Superintendent of Ionia State Hosp., 377 F.2d 467 (6th Cir. 1967) (same).
The Eleventh Circuit in Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), adopted as binding precedent the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit rendered prior October 1, 1981.
The present petition (Docs. 1 2) does not contain a specific constitutional challenge to Petitioner's mental commitment. Rather, Petitioner's allegations are incoherent and, at best, contain a general challenge to her involuntary mental commitment. However, "a habeas claim must include a reference to a specific federal constitutional guarantee, as well as a statement of the facts which entitle the petitioner to relief." Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152, 163, 116 S.Ct. 2074, 2081, 135 L.Ed.2d 457 (1996) (citing Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 92 S.Ct. 509, 30 L.Ed.2d 438 (1971)). The basis for this requirement is founded on the requirement that the same claim must be fairly presented to the state courts in order for the claim to be exhausted. Id. In addition, a civil complaint is required to provide fair notice of the claim and the facts supporting the claim so the Court and the defendant can obtain an idea about that which the plaintiff is complaining. Fed.R.Civ.P.8(a);Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 168, 113 S.Ct. 1160, 1163, 122 L.Ed.2d 517 (1993) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)); L.S.T., Inc. v. Crow, 49 F.3d 679, 684 (11th Cir. 1995). Moreover, it is not a federal court's duty to review all of the state records to determine if Petitioner does in fact have a claim worthy of habeas review. See GJR Investments, Inc. v. County of Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998) ("Yet even in the case of pro se litigants a court [does not have] license to serve as de facto counsel for a party . . ., or to rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an action. . . ." (citations omitted)). Accordingly, the undersigned finds that the instant petition for habeas corpus relief is without merit because Petitioner has failed to present a constitutional claim upon which habeas corpus relief could issue if warranted.
Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United State District Courts provides that "[t]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to the extent that they are not inconsistent with these rules, may be applied, when appropriate, to petitions filed under these rules."
III. Conclusion.
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, provides, in part: "If it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge shall make an order for its summary dismissal and cause the petitioner to be notified." Because it is readily apparent from the face of the petition that Petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this Court, it is recommended that the instant petition be dismissed pursuant to Rule 4.
The Court observes that no information is provided regarding exhaustion of state court remedies and that it is highly doubtful that Petitioner has exhausted her state-court remedies considering thZit she was recently committed and that the presentation of a constitutional claim through the state-court system takes considerable time.
Additionally, the Court notes that Petitioner's filings since her release (Docs. 3 4) are only concerned with Jerry Pilgrim's retention of her social security checks. Such an issue cannot be addressed in a habeas proceeding which is solely concerned with a person's custody by state authorities and release. Rather, a dispute over money taken or owed involving residents of the same state must be brought in state court.
Attachment 1
In the U.S. District Court Southern Division Mobile, AL. Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
RE: BEVERLY JO JONES v. JERRY PILGRIM
Comes, Beverly Jo Jones, with the aid of her son Daniel, U.S. Army, just to arrive in Mobile yesterday to issue her cause to this court as follows:
I. THAT this court has been issued by petitioner many caused to be considered and it has neglected as yet to regard these latest.
II. THAT the issue here is serious, as have been all petitioners cases — that Jerry Pilgrims' Petition to Probate Court on February 22, seen 23rd and heard and actioned 25th did see Judy Noonan ignore petition's pleading that laid weight on facts petitioner has made international emphasis that "illness" do not exist but professional and social drug-pushing do and Noonan most dangerously did defy petitioners' pleas as did U.S. District neglect to review petition left there and she is being held against will with threats of forcing drug on her at:
Daphne Poundstone 7400 Roper Land Daphne, AL 36526 Room 508
III. THAT Beverly Jo Jones holds highest regard to John Jerrel Pilgrim and always will and always has but issues him no right nor duty to prevent her from being free to produce like all other are to be.
IV. THAT Petition may try to get son to retype but if unaceessibly, petition will be filed as is.
Therefore, promises considered, petitioner prays this court will immediately this day next opened release petitioner via writ — which will bring both parties, Beverly Jo Jones and J. Jerry Pilgrim before tribunal to determine why petitioner is lower than mud and Pilgrim is seen higher than high water.
Respectfully issued,
Beverly J. Jones 825 James St. 334-679-9117 Saraland, AL 36571
JONES v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE
Beverly Jo Jones v. Department of Health, Education and Welfare United States District Court, Southern Division February 24, 2000
Petition to Addendum
Comes now, Beverly Jo Jones, in pro per, in forma pauparis (previous petitions stated J. Jerry Pilgrim has my monies, chose in action, or just safekeeping), as follows:
I. THAT this court has been petitioned by said relative to many human rights violations that honestly do come under the racketeering laws and must be contained — stated.
II. THAT immediate threat is what Petitioner did leave this court early this morning written by hand last night, due to having no access to a computer or typing instrument, and that was facts that J. Jerry Pilgrim had issued via the Department of Human Services petition to slander petitioner's name and person and evaluate what petitioner has laid out over five years, that "illnesses" per se do not exist — stated.
III. THAT it would be most volatile to all to pursue such extremities and there are many cases that are going to have to be court reviewed one at a time — stated.
IV. THAT the basis for any "reviewing" needs some facts of life that right now are being violated, inclusive of violating the Constitutional edicts of equality, of "never making any laws" that defy the U.S. Constitution — stated.
V. THAT anything that violates the #4 or #14, for example, are wrong and must be criminally attributed or recognized as having been supported by society and stopped, either by within the people of this nation or by forcible interjection of the United Nations Task-Keeping agency or other — stated.
VI. THAT the premise behind any legal remedy always contains: "Justice demands punishment" and "Unpunished immorality leads to disease", but equal protection of the law determines no one can get their basic needs to survive withdrawn — stated.
VII. THAT petitioner holds no apology for having the simple, yet complex, because one has to do it, explanation of basic needs to survive and they are 1)nutrition, 2) physical strengthening regimens, and 3) moral individual purpose inclusive of mating — always, always, always with regard to morality and Amendment #14, which states that one is not mate unless there is life potential handed down in a posterity, one cannot mate and not have the potential to bear children (conceive in womb via normal copulation and fertilization that all animals of the upper kingdoms do), one is not moral under any other idea so goes hand-in-hand that such ideas would be the stuff that would be lined out to be criminal (as nobody is mentally ill, nor sick, only basic need denied), which is "1) immoral, 2) victim of immorality, or 3) denied the basic needs to survive, already stated above — stated.
VIII. THAT it may regurgitate any who ponder how a "nice lady" could come upon such, but petitioner needs emphasize that her learnedness in sciences, astuteness in moral base which complements any knowledge of government and law and her having bore five healthy children (as all children are who have been provided the basic needs to survive and did so in a normal and natural labor and setting) is relatively keen, and she is more agile and desirous of keeping and gaining her physical adeptness than most who are conned out of their right to do same by present notions handed down from stupid, erroneous ideas and kept by some such as the Department of Health, Education and Welfare — stated.
IX. THAT this petitioner wants to end this day with food (as she has told this and other courts her funds are kept by J. Jerry Pilgrim, so she eats slight, but sufficiently until this or her taxes are filed and come in), as KSJ is having free pizza at Wal-Mart in Saraland, and she has spent all day running, as she usually does most of her door to door (learned in World Book Sales and U.S. Census, 1990) telling those who need to come to Probate tomorrow, if they want to, and she needs to cease now to this court and deliver to Probate same and like petition to go with what she may need to defend herself from this blasphemously outlandishly, promise of "rehashing" what has already been established by her at least in the 11/8/97 "goose" letter or the February, 1998, letter to World Health Organization — that illnesses do not exist, per se, but archaic treatment programs that violate all above-stated do — stated.
X. THAT petitioner can defend herself fine tomorrow but had hoped to input more relative to what actions need to be taken for those still being imposed this notion of "criminal to be incarcerated" or "mentally ill to be forcibly injected with drugs for life", but this is more than enough for one day — stated.
XI. THAT petitioner, with what her former Attorney does have or hopefully recognizes (she has seen him only the other day from a distance in court for the first time in five years) ought expect this or other court to give her this Department' funding and with all the legally competent in areas of domestic relations, with the recalling of written print that defies human rights, with the masses the must be issued immediate justice which simply is to provide basic needs and give back property rights and that does incorporate all these mystical societies and charities and religions who have been funded to be nonprofit but are the biggest profit making mess there is — make them go to court for intruding into such property rights as children, dare to have their parents called "abusive" — this is all in direct conflict with the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to take from those who bear morally and let those who do not get funds and control of other people's children — stated.
XII. THAT petitioner wants the house in Providence Place in West Mobile with amenities aproposly decorated that her cousin and uncle did build that petitioner's has loved so much ever since first seeing it and rights to it need be just and they are as a "foreigner" who is a medical person has come into this U.S. of A. who may think that all sovereignty goes to foreigners and medical/psychological/pharmaceutical (and others like NASA who also very likely cannot prove where they did go) and he exemplifies the need to recall such learned in human rights violations and have his property taken (as example that we do not discriminate on the basis of nationality or origin) as he, petitioner thinks, does make him much income that pays for that home petitioner did plan to buy and could have if the Department of Health, Education and Welfare had not violated her most sordidly even after she had worked so hard and industriously to give them and many hundreds of universities input as to all this above — stated.
XIII. THAT paragraph XII rights can be proved by petitioner or her former attorney and she demands this be her hard-earned labor's pay, with rights to either or both 7 Dauphin Street, when she can business much of her incorporations, as 1109 Suite of 63 South Royal, her first place to come upon her former attorney and her multimous learnedness was housed there a long time, not to leave out her Gadsden home or 1601 Kyle Avenue which was violently and illegally taken in August 1996, as the President knows as does the General Wooten of Ft. McClellan and the Secret Service — stated.
XIV. THAT petitioner only adds last two paragraphs to aware court that she has ambitions to regaining her stance from which she came in this life, but holds no duty to this court to put this forefront right now — stated.
XV. THAT the need to issue criminal charges against these on the petition of Probate can be done later, but petitioner adds that these and this court are violating her right to live free from the fear and danger of the establishment — stated.
XVI. THAT petitioner respectfully tells court that the U.S. Appeals in Atlanta, as the U.S. Supreme Court or, if best, the AL Supreme Court need to hear this and other cases soon, but this court can seek what was returned by Supreme Court recently to see if it desires these cases which will have to come to forefront as for justice sake — stated.
THEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner asks this court to not let the Probate harm her as they have most sordidly violated all aspects of decency by this ill-manner that may be seen in all they have issued to her.
WHEREFORE, petitioner asks court to seek J. Jerry Pilgrim as she has asked it before that he does need to address this issue with her and prays court will intervene to establish petitioner's kept freedom as she has great plans to attend on this special day upcoming of the 29th of February, this Leap Year of 2000.
RESPECTFULLY ISSUED, this day of February 24, 2000,
Beverly Jo Jones 825 James Street Saraland, AL 36571 334-679-9117
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Probate Court of Mobile County, Alabama, located at Royal and Government St., by hand-delivery to the clerk, Kathy, to go as defense to that Judge Noonan, Judge Donald Davis (Temp) did lay upon her for tomorrow, the 25th of February 2000.
Attachment 2
In the U.S. District Court Southern Division
RE COMMITTMENT PROCEEDINGS OF JONES
Re: Committment Proceedings of Beverly Jo Jones or J. Jerry Pilgrim
Notice to Justices of This Court
I, Beverly Jo Jones, am tentatively writing this to leave you in case I have no source to type up a petition to you to hault this.
J. Jerry Pilgrim did file via Tamara Johnson of DHR, the 22nd, and deputies came out to intrude into my business at the Saraland library — typing up Municipal Court rewrite (I told you) to serve committment paper. I did issue another out. Jerry en self-defense, but knowing how all of you have too long — idled around and let entire international Body, focus on your illegal manner, I do not know it Nooner will serve or Jerry.
Whatever, I'll drop this off a.m. tomorrow. (I have not typewriter) —
You need to either issue my regard here or be at the committment proceedings anti-me or anti-Jerry.
World need to know how you violate petitions for writ of Habeas Corpus. World needs to know all the personals I gave you relative to John Jerrel and my letters to him you have.
My right — my duty and it is Biblical Proverbs 27:5 — "Open rebuke is better than secret love."
Date: Probate Court — Courtroom #2 9:30 a.m. 2-25-00 Mobile —
Respectfully,
Beverly Jo Jones 825 James St. Saraland, AL 36571 334-679-9117
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
IN RE: BEVERLY JO JONES
ORDER ON DEFICIENT DOCUMENTS
The Court finds that:1. ___X Document was not accompanied by the required filing fee of $5.00, see 28 U.S.C. § 1914, or a motion to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a). This Court's form for a motion to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs is enclosed herewith for your use, if needed.
2. ___ _______________________________
_______________________________ has not been signed. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 11.
3. OTHER: On each occasion that the Court has entered an order advising Ms. Jones of filing deficient documents and has returned the documents to her, Ms. Jones has returned the documents and the order to the Court in the envelope in which the documents and the order were sent to her. The Court's last order, order dated March 1, 2000, and Ms. Jones's attendant documents were returned by her to the Court in the same manner. However, Ms. Jones also included in the envelope a letter from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, returning her filings and informing her that it lacks jurisdiction over her matter, and an order dismissing her action, 99-0921-AH-M, for lack of service of process.
Ms. Jones wrote on the Court's order dated March 1, 2000, that she wants the Court to reconsider. To date, Ms. Jones has not paid the $5.00 filing fee or filed a motion to proceed without prepayment of fees, and has not submitted a coherent petition on a proper form. Therefore, the Court does not have an action before it.
If it is Ms. Jones's desire to proceed on a petition for the writ of habeas corpus, before this Court will address the merits of her petition, she must have a properly filed action before this Court and have demonstrated that she has exhausted her state court remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (b).
In addition, the Court is returning to Ms. Jones her document filed on March 28, 2000, titled "Motion of Certiorari/Counterclaim", as it was not accompanied by the filing fee or a motion to proceed without prepayment of fees.
The Clerk is directed to return the deficient document(s) to Plaintiff, who shall have 20 days from the date of this order to correct any deficiency noted. Failure to return the document(s), with the deficiency or deficiencies corrected, within the prescribed time will result in the document(s) being deemed stricken pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11.
The Clerk is further directed to ensure that there is a date-stamp reflecting the date of receipt on the document(s) to be returned in order to preserve the earliest possible filing date and to make a copy of the document(s), together with a copy of this order, for retention in a suspense file until such time as the original is returned or until the expiration of the time allowed by this order, whichever occurs first.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED at Mobile, Alabama this the 31st of March, 2000.
WILLIAM H. STEELE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
IN RE: BEVERLY JO JONES
ORDER ON DEFICIENT DOCUMENTS
The Clerk has received your Petition to Addendum, dated February 24, 2000, your Notice to Justices of This Court, received February 24, 2000, and your Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, received February 28, 2000. The Court, however, finds that they are deficient in the area(s) checked below.1. ___ Document was not accompanied by the required filing fee of $ ___, see 28 U.S.C. § 1914, or a motion to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a). This Court's form for a motion to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs is enclosed herewith for your use, if needed.
2. ___ _________________________________________________________
_________________________ has not been signed. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 11.
3. OTHER: These documents do not comply with the pleading requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure .
The Clerk is directed to return the deficient document(s) to Plaintiff, who shall have 20 days from the date of this order to correct any deficiency noted. Failure to return the document(s), with the deficiency or deficiencies corrected, within the prescribed time will result in the document(s) being deemed stricken pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11.
The Clerk is further directed to ensure that there is a date-stamp reflecting the date of receipt on the document(s) to be returned in order to preserve the earliest possible filing date and to make a copy of the document(s), together with a copy of this order, for retention in a suspense file until such time as the original is returned or until the expiration of the time allowed by this order, whichever occurs first.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED at Mobile, Alabama this the 1st day of March, 2000.
WILLIAM H. STEELE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Motion to Reconsider: Beverly Jo Jones needs this Court to issue to her a Writ of Habeas Corpus from Daphne Poundstone, 7400 Roper Ln., Daphne, AL 36526.
Where she has been held against her will since 2-25-2000 She needs this Court to impose Jerry Pilgrim, herin cited, to respond to her pleas for S.S.I. checks and documents he holds, chose in action, petitioner has been co-erced and forced to take drugs, contrary to her will and ability to function appropriatly. All documents herein need to be reviewed.