United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
GORDON BAKER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
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:
Liberal Construction of Pro se Pleadings
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).
Standard of Review for Section 2254
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).
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).
Background and Allegations
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. See Charleston
County Court of Common Pleas, General Sessions, Case Nos.
2017A1010202928, 2017A1010202929, 2016A1010205518,
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. 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).
“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). 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
Petitioner's Challenge to his ...