Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jones v. Cannon

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division

November 7, 2017

Jarrett Javonte Jones, Petitioner,
v.
Sheriff Al Cannon, Respondent.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          MARY GORDON BAKER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Jarrett Javonte Jones (“Petitioner”) has filed a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and/or § 2241. (DE# 1). He filed an “Amended Petition” on November 1, 2017. (DE# 7). Petitioner is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Petitioner is a pretrial detainee at the Sheriff Al Cannon Detention Center located in North Charleston, South Carolina. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), the United States Magistrate Judge is authorized to submit findings and recommendations to the United States District Judge. Having carefully reviewed the record, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Amended Petition (DE# 7) should be summarily dismissed without prejudice for the following reasons:

         I. Relevant Law

         A. Liberal Construction of Pro se Pleadings

         Pro se pleadings are liberally construed and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by attorneys. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). However, “[t]he ‘special judicial solicitude' with which a district court should view ... pro se filings does not transform the court into an advocate.” United States v. Wilson, 699 F.3d 789, 797 (4th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S.Ct. 2401 (2013). Only those questions which are squarely presented to a court may properly be addressed. Weller v. Dept. of Soc. Servs., City of Baltimore., 901 F.2d 387, 391 (4th Cir. 1990). Giving “liberal construction” does not mean that a court can ignore a prisoner's clear failure to allege facts that set forth a cognizable claim. “Principles requiring generous construction of pro se complaints ... [do] not require ... courts to conjure up questions never squarely presented to them.” Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1088 (1986).

         B. Standard of Review for Section 2254

         Under established local procedure in this judicial district, a careful review has been made of the pro se Petition filed in this case pursuant to the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. § 2254; the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214; and in light of the following precedents: Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324-25 (1989); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); Nasim v. Warden, Md. House of Corr., 64 F.3d 951 (4th Cir. 1995) (en banc); and Todd v. Baskerville, 712 F.2d 70 (4th Cir. 1983).

         Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, a district court may summarily dismiss a habeas petition if it is plainly apparent from the record that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. See also Rule 1(b) (applying the rules pertaining to § 2254 proceedings to habeas petitions brought pursuant to § 2241).

         II. Background and Allegations

         State records indicate that Petitioner was arrested on May 18, 19, and 26, 2017. The state criminal charges presently pending against him include: 1) 0139-Robbery / Armed Robbery, robbery while armed or allegedly armed with a deadly weapon; 2) 0549-Weapons / Poss. weapon during violent crime, if not also sentenced to life without parole or death; 3) 3009-Drugs / Possession of less than one gram of meth. or cocaine base, 1st offense; 4) 3467-Vehicle / Poss., conceal, sell., or dispose of stolen vehicle, value more than $2, 000 but less than $10, 000; 5) 0731-FinanTC / Financial Transaction Card fraud value $500 or less in six month period; 6) 0065-Traffic / Failure to stop for a blue light, no injury or death - 1st offense. He was indicted on September 25, 2017. See Indictment Nos. 2017GS1005341, 2017GS1005342, 2017GS1005343, 2017GS1005344, 2017GS1005345, 2017GS1005346.[1] See Charleston County Court of Common Pleas, General Sessions, Case Nos. 2017A1010202928, 2017A1010202929, 2016A1010205518, 2017A1010202921, 2017A1010202922, 2017A1020100261.[2]

         On October 10, 2017, Petitioner filed a two-page hand-written document, labeled as a “Writ of Habeas Corpus” and citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254, 2241. (DE# 1). Petitioner demands “bond reduction, P.R. bond.” (Id. at 1). Petitioner stated no facts or grounds for relief of any kind. He cited several cases, but provided no explanation or reasoning.[3] By Proper Form Order of October 25, 2017, the Court requested the Clerk of Court to provide Petitioner with a preprinted habeas form. (DE# 3). The Court specifically directed the Petitioner to “complete and sign the pre-printed form” and submit it for filing. (Id.). The form contains questions and includes space for “Grounds For Habeas Relief” and supporting facts. Petitioner incompletely filled out the form, labeled it as an “Amended Petition, ” and filed it on November 1, 2017. (DE# 7). Petitioner also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis that same day. (“IFP”). (DE# 6).

         In his “Amended Petition, ” the Petitioner does not state any grounds for habeas relief or provide any supporting facts. He cites several cases, but again, provides no explanation or reasoning for citing these cases. Petitioner merely indicates “see original writ of habeas corpus and also see preliminary hearing transcript/records.” (DE# 7 at 8-9).[4] Petitioner states he wants “dismissal of all charges” (Id.). Review of the Amended Petition reflects that the Petitioner has filed a duplicate of a petition filed by another pretrial detainee at the Sheriff Al Cannon Detention Center. See Miller v. Cannon, D.S.C. Case No. 2:17-cv-2752-TMC-MGB.

         III. Discussion

         A. Petitioner's Challenge to his ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.