United States District Court, N.D. Ohio
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER
R. ADAMS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
another habeas corpus action filed pro se
by Antoine Maurice Moore under 28 U.S.C. §
2254. His petition (Doc. No. 1), as well as the
supplement he filed captioned as an “Amended
Complaint” (Doc. No. 4), are incomprehensible and
impossible to decipher. On its face, his petition indicates
he seeks to challenge a pending appeal in the Ohio Court of
Appeals (see Doc. No. 1 at 1, ¶ 2(a)), which
relates to his October 2018 conviction to the offense of
breaking and entering in No. CR-18-2559 in the Lucas County
Court of Common Pleas. He seeks “injunctive relief
declaratory relief monetary relief [and] punitive
relief” for “violation of fourteenth Amendment
rights.” (Id. at 15.)
to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases
under § 2254, a federal district court is required to
examine a habeas corpus petition and determine
whether “it plainly appears from the petition and any
attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to
relief in the district court.” If so, the district
court must summarily dismiss the petition. See Rule
4; Allen v. Perini, 424 F.2d 134, 141 (6th Cir.
1970) (district court has the duty to “screen
out” petitions that lack merit on their face).
Court finds that this petition must be summarily dismissed.
First, the petitioner has not set forth comprehensible
grounds for his petition. Because the petition contains so
many unintelligible and conclusory allegations and
statements, it is impossible for the Court to determine the
exact errors of fact or law raised for the Court's
disposition. As such, the petition is subject to dismissal
under Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus
Cases. See, e.g, Rice v. Warden, No. 1:14-cv-732,
2015 WL 5299421, at *4 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 9, 2015)
(“Dismissal under Habeas Rule 2(c) is
appropriate in cases such as this where the petition and
accompanying documents, as well as petitioner's
additional pleadings and notices, contain “so many
unintelligible and conclusory allegations and
statements” that it is impossible for the Court to
determine “the exact errors of fact or law” that
have been raised for adjudication or even whether
petitioner's stated grounds for relief pertain to
anything that occurred in the challenged . . . criminal
case”), Report and Recommendation adopted, 2015 WL
6104354 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 16, 2015). See also Jackson v.
Albany Appeal Bureau Unit, 442 F.3d 51, 53-54 (2d Cir.
2006) (habeas petitioner's amended petition was
unintelligible, warranting dismissal pursuant to Rule 2(c) of
the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases).
to the extent petitioner seeks to challenge his conviction in
Lucas County Court of Common Pleas in No. CR-18-2559, he has
not demonstrated that he has fully exhausted his state-court
remedies. Petitioner was clearly notified, in a prior
habeas corpus action he filed pertaining to the same
conviction, that he could not seek habeas corpus
relief until he fully exhausted his state remedies by giving
“the highest court in the state . . . a full and fair
opportunity to rule on [his] claims.” See Moore v.
Lucas County Prosecutor's Office, No. 3: 18 CV 2156,
slip op. at 2 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 22, 2018). The petition does
not demonstrate that petitioner's claims regarding his
conviction, whatever they are, have been fully exhausted in
the Ohio courts. Indeed, he represents his appeal is
“still pending.” (Doc. No. 1 at 2-3, ¶9(g)).
habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy for state
prisoners to attack the validity of fact or length of their
confinement. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475
(1973). But [i]f a state prisoner is seeking damages, ”
as petitioner asserts he is here, “he is attacking
something other than the fact or length of his confinement,
and . . . habeas corpus is not an appropriate or
available federal remedy.” Preiser v.
Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 494 (1973). To seek damages, a
prisoner must file a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Id.
of the foregoing reasons, the petition in this case is denied
and this action is dismissed pursuant to Rules 2 and 4 of the
Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases. The Court
further certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3),
that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good
faith and that there is no basis upon which to issue a
certificate of appealability. Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
Petitioner has filed several prior
petitions under 2254 that have been summarily dismissed.
See Moore v. Lucas County Sheriff's Department,
No. 3: 18 CV 2977 (N.D. Ohio April 24, 2019); Moore v.
Lucas County Prosecutor's Office, No. 3: 18 CV 2156
(N.D. Ohio Oct. 22, 2018). Additionally, he has been declared
a frivolous filer in federal court and is prohibited from
filing further civil actions without paying the full filing
fee. See Moore v. John Tharp, et al., No. 3: 19 CV
2060 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 9, 2019).
Because petitioner has already been
declared a frivolous filer, he may not proceed in forma
pauperis and must pay the full filing fee if he files a