Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Hill v. Perry

United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina

June 12, 2014

QUINCEY LAMAR HILL, Petitioner,
v.
FRANK PERRY, Respondent.

ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

L. PATRICK AULD, Magistrate Judge.

Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of North Carolina, submitted several documents to the court. Even though Petitioner has not used the correct forms for a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, it appears that Petitioner seeks to attack his state court criminal conviction. The documents he filed are not a recognizable method for achieving this goal. Instead, the proper avenue for such an attack is ordinarily a petition for habeas corpus. For this reason, the Court will construe the submission as a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in state custody. For the following reasons, the Petition cannot be further processed.

1. The filing fee was not received, nor was an affidavit to proceed in forma pauperis submitted and signed by Petitioner.
2. Petitioner has not used the required § 2254 Forms. Rule 2, R. Gov. § 2254 Cases. The Clerk will forward to Petitioner the proper forms.
3. Although Petitioner's claims appear connected to alleged perjury, they are so rambling and confused as a whole that it is difficult to understand them. Petitioner must present his claims in an understandable manner.

Because of these pleading failures, the Petition will be filed and then dismissed, without prejudice to Petitioner filing a new petition on the proper habeas corpus forms with the $5.00 filing fee, or a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis, and otherwise correcting the defects noted.[1] The Court has no authority to toll the statute of limitation, therefore it continues to run, and Petitioner must act quickly if he wishes to pursue this Petition. See Spencer v. Sutton , 239 F.3d 626 (4th Cir. 2001). To further aid Petitioner, the Clerk is instructed to send Petitioner a new application to proceed in forma pauperis, new § 2254 forms, and instructions for filing a § 2254 petition, which Petitioner should follow.

In forma pauperis status will be granted for the sole purpose of entering this Order and Recommendation of dismissal with permission to file a new petition which corrects the defects of the present Petition.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that in forma pauperis status is granted for the sole purpose of entering this Order and Recommendation. The Clerk is instructed to send Petitioner § 2254 forms, instructions, and a current application to proceed in forma pauperis.

IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be construed as a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and dismissed sua sponte without prejudice to Petitioner filing a new petition which corrects the defects of the current Petition. The new petition must be accompanied by either the five dollar filing fee or a current application to proceed in forma pauperis.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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