Opinion
C/A 5:22-4512-RBH-KDW
12-27-2022
Jarrel Johnson, Petitioner, v. Travis Bragg, U.S. Government, Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Kaymani D. West United States Magistrate Judge
Jarrel Johnson (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se, is a detainee incarcerated at the Marlboro County Detention Center. He filed the instant § 2241 habeas Petition on November 3, 2022, challenging his present incarceration. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c) (D.S.C.), the undersigned is authorized to review such complaints for relief and submit findings and recommendations to the district judge. For the reasons that follow, the undersigned recommends the district judge dismiss the habeas Petition without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
Petitioner raises four grounds in his § 2241 Petition. Those grounds are:
GROUND ONE: According to the Sixth Amendment I have an right to an speedy trial & counsel.
Supporting Facts: According to the qualifications of a federal 28 U.S.C. 2241 form, my actions from past dreams (I still stand behind today) coupled with acts that I have readily available over qualifies for eligibility of this brief and sangs out justice.
GROUND TWO: The Fugitive Slave law of 1850 make mentions of making satisfactory proof of identity of a fugitive slave as an requirement to have a fugitive person returned to a claimant.
Supporting Facts: According to the 4th Amendment an officer of the law must particularly describe the place to be searched & the persons or things to be seized. That past judicial law stands today as I have instituted my ideology of qualifications
for such violations of the house associated with my case.
GROUND THREE: The acts form the oppositions in my cases have been unjustifiedly administered & are contradictory to the laws that are clearly established already in the Constitution & legislation.
Supporting Facts: As I've humored with class in an previous memorandum following an segment of my qualified identification, of how boundaries are being breached & unjustifiedly placed around the black race.
GROUND FOUR: Time and value as it relates to evolution, is an certain factor that is clearly established in the system structured in today's workface.
Supporting Facts: If that is true then my current state of evolution is not being adequately equivalated to value & according to the Eighth Amendment any such fees for the progression of my day would be considered excessive fines. Also such punishment being “justifiably” administered that continue to be added to the tazing during my arrivals.ECF No. 1 at 5-7 (Errors in original).
II. Discussion
A. Standard of Review
Under established local procedure in this judicial district, a careful review has been made of this Petition pursuant to the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings for the United States District Court, the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, and other habeas corpus statutes. Pro se complaints are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). A federal court is charged with liberally construing a complaint filed by a pro se litigant to allow the development of a potentially meritorious case. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). In evaluating a pro se complaint, the plaintiff's allegations are assumed to be true. Fine v. City of N.Y., 529 F.2d 70, 74 (2d Cir. 1975). The mandated liberal construction afforded to pro se pleadings means if the court can reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could prevail, it should do so. Nevertheless, the requirement of liberal construction does not mean the court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts that set forth a claim currently cognizable in a federal district court. Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 39091 (4th Cir. 1990).
The Rules Governing Section 2254 are applicable to habeas actions brought under § 2241. See Rule 1(b).
B. Analysis
Petitioner has a habeas Petition pending before this court alleging identical facts and claims. See Johnson v. Bragg, C/A No.: 5:22-3980-RBH-KDW (D.S.C Nov. 8, 2022) (“Johnson I”). As in the instant pleading, Plaintiff's habeas petition in Johnson I raises the identical habeas grounds as those raised in the instant Petition. Johnson I, ECF No. 1. Because the issues involved in the habeas petition sub judice are currently before the court in Johnson I, this duplicate habeas Petition is frivolous and subject to dismissal. See Cottle v. Bell, No. 00-6367, 2000 WL 1144623, at *1 (4th Cir. Aug. 14, 2000) (“Because district courts are not required to entertain duplicative or redundant lawsuits, they may dismiss such suits as frivolous pursuant to § 1915(e).”); Aziz v. Burrows, 976 F.2d 1158 (8th Cir. 1998) (“[D]istrict courts may dismiss a duplicative complaint raising issues directly related to issues in another pending action brought by the same party.”). Therefore, in the interests of judicial economy and efficiency, the instant habeas Petition should be summarily dismissed. See Aloe Creme Labs., Inc. v. Francine Co., 425 F.2d 1295, 1296 (5th Cir. 1970) (“The District Court clearly had the right to take notice of its own files and records and it had no duty to grind the same corn a second time. Once was sufficient.”).
A district court may take judicial notice of materials in the court's own files from prior proceedings. See United States v. Parker, 956 F.2d 169, 171 (8th Cir. 1992) (holding that the district court had the right to take judicial notice of a prior related proceeding); see also Fletcher v. Bryan, 175 F.2d 716 (4th Cir. 1949).
III. Conclusion and Recommendation
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends that the court dismiss the habeas Petition without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
The parties are directed to note the important information in the attached “Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation.”
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. [I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must Donly satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.00 Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. 0 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Robin L. Blume, Clerk
United States District Court
Post Office Box 2317
Florence, South Carolina 29503
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. 0 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Am, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d91 (4th Cir. 1984).