United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Dennis Saylor IV United States District Judge.
reasons set forth below, the petition for writ of habeas
corpus will be denied.
August 9, 2019, Jacob Andrew Bergeron filed a pro se
pleading entitled “Writ of Habeas Corpus.” The
case was assigned pursuant to the Court's Program for
Random Assignment of Civil Cases to Magistrate Judges. On
September 19, 2019, this action was reassigned pursuant to
Local Rule 40.1(g)(1) as related to Bergeron v. Unknown
Agents of the State of Georgia, No. 19-11729-FDS.
petition does not specify a particular section of the habeas
statute and is not signed. See Docket No. 1. The
case caption identifies the respondent as “Unknown
State Agents.” Id. The jurisdictional
statement alleges that Bergeron is “under [duress] and
with [illegal] restraint upon his liberty, invoking the
powers and jurisdictions of the [great writ of habeas
corpus].” See Compl. p. 1. He alleges that
there was a “blatant and obvious speedy trial violation
in Douglas County State of Georgia”; that there is a
conspiracy “between state actors and [a] federal
district court judge of Atlanta unnamed herein out of fear of
further retaliation”; and that he has been the victim
of crimes committed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512,
1513, and 2261. Id. at 1-2. For relief, he seeks an
“order for the federal investigation into the
aforementioned matters and facts.” Id. at 4.
did not pay the filing fee or file an application for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1914(a) (filing fee for civil actions); 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915 (proceedings in forma pauperis).
essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody
upon the legality of that custody, and . . . the traditional
function of the writ is to secure release from illegal
custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475,
484 (1973). The rules governing Section 2254 cases may be
applied at the discretion of the district court to other
types of habeas petitions. See Rule 1(b) of the
Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings; Boutwell v.
Keating, 399 F.3d 1203, 1211 n. 2 (10th Cir. 2005)
(district court acted within its discretion by applying Rule
4(b) of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section
2254 to § 2241 petition); Perez v. Hemingway,
157 F.Supp.2d 790, 795 (E.D. Mich. 2001).
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings, the
court is required to examine a petition, and if it
“plainly appears from the petition and any attached
exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the
district court, ” the court “must dismiss the
petition and direct the clerk to notify the
petitioner.” Rule 4; see McFarland v. Scott,
512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994) (habeas petition may be dismissed if
it appears to be legally insufficient on its face);
Mahoney v. Vondergritt, 938 F.2d 1490, 1494 (1st
Cir. 1991) (upholding Rule 4 summary dismissal of § 2254
petition). A petition for a writ of habeas corpus may also be
summarily dismissed if it fails to set forth facts that give
rise to a cause of action under federal law. Marmol v.
Dubois, 855 F.Supp. 444, 446 (D. Mass. 1994); see
Eady v. Director, Charleston County Detention
Center, 2011 WL 3704225, *3 (D.S.C. 2011) citing
Allen v. Perini, 424 F.2d 134, 141 (6th Cir. 1970)
(noting that district courts have a duty to screen habeas
petitions and eliminate burden on respondents caused by
ordering an unnecessary answer or return).
resides in Georgia and California and is not alleged to be
subject to state or federal custody or confinement. He
complains that his rights were violated during unspecified
state and federal proceedings and seeks to have this court
order a federal investigation, which of course it has no
authority to do.
petition fails to advance any colorable basis from which the
Court could find that Bergeron may be entitled to relief.
Furthermore, because the petition presents no facts
indicating that he is in custody following a conviction or
sentence, this court is without jurisdiction to entertain his
foregoing reasons, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is
DISMISSED. The clerk shall enter a separate order of