RICHARDS v. STATE OF GEORGIA

CourtDistrict Court, M.D. Georgia
DecidedApril 23, 2025
Docket5:25-cv-00095
StatusUnknown

This text of RICHARDS v. STATE OF GEORGIA (RICHARDS v. STATE OF GEORGIA) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
RICHARDS v. STATE OF GEORGIA, (M.D. Ga. 2025).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION

BRYON JEQUAN RICHARDS, : : Petitioner, : : v. : Case No. 5:25-cv-95-MTT-AGH : STATE OF GEORGIA, : : Respondent.1 : : _________________________________

ORDER

Petitioner Bryon Jequan Richards filed a pleading that was docketed as a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (ECF No. 1). Although Petitioner labeled the filing as a “civil claim complaint,” it appears that he is attempting to seek habeas corpus relief under either 28 U.S.C. § 2241 or 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Therefore, Petitioner is ORDERED to clarify the type of relief that he is seeking by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Additionally, Petitioner is ORDERED to either pay the filing fee for his petition or move for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Finally, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 2). I. Petitioner Must Recast His Petition. In his pleading, Petitioner appears to be challenging his current detention or

1 Because Petitioner labeled his pleading as a civil complaint, it was docketed as a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, and the parties were designated as Plaintiff and Defendant. As discussed, the pleading is properly construed as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and thus, the parties should be designated as Petitioner and Respondent. The clerk is DIRECTED to update the docket accordingly. incarceration—he states that he never received any documentation or court dates and asserts that he is being falsely imprisoned. Compl. 1, ECF No. 1; Compl. Ex. 2, at 1, ECF No. 1-2. He also asks for “dismissal of all charges [and] probation cases against

Petitioner.” Compl. Ex. 2, at 1. In his motion to appoint counsel, Petitioner claims that he has been imprisoned on “false probation warrants.” Mot. to Appoint Counsel, ECF No. 2. Petitioner, however, provides no other information regarding where he is currently in custody or whether he is being held based on a state court conviction or on some other basis. See generally Compl. Petitioner also included two addresses in his motion to appoint counsel. Mot. to Appoint Counsel. However, both of these addresses appear to be private

residences. Thus, they do not provide any additional information as to Plaintiff’s current custody status. Further, an order of the Court sent to Petitioner at Wilcox State Prison was returned bearing a notation that Petitioner was released. Mail Returned, ECF No. 4. A writ of habeas corpus is a state prisoner’s sole federal remedy when he “is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, and the relief he

seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that imprisonment.”2 See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973).

2 If Petitioner wants to proceed with a habeas corpus petition, he should be aware that he must have exhausted his state court remedies before he will be able to proceed with a federal habeas corpus petition, and that the filing of this petition may subject any subsequent petition attacking his state conviction or sentence to the restrictive conditions that federal law imposes on second or successive habeas petitions. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b); see also Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 382-83 (2003). 2 Consequently, Petitioner is ORDERED to recast his pleading on a habeas corpus form if he seeks to challenge the fact or duration of his incarceration. If Petitioner is currently incarcerated pursuant to a state court conviction and sentence, he should

file a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. See Medberry v. Crosby, 352 F.3d 1049, 1062 (11th Cir. 2003) (explaining that, when “a state prisoner is ‘in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court,’ his petition is subject to § 2254 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a))). If Petitioner is currently in custody on some basis other than a state court judgment, he should file a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. See id. (holding that the petition of a prisoner who is in custody “pursuant to something other than a judgment of a state court, e.g., a pre-trial bond order, . . . is not subject to § 2254”).

II. Petitioner Must Pay the Filing Fee or Move to Proceed IFP. Petitioner has not paid the filing fee or moved for leave to proceed in this action IFP. Therefore, he is also ORDERED to either pay the $5.00 filing fee for a habeas corpus petition or file a properly completed motion to proceed IFP. Petitioner must complete the entire in forma pauperis application by filling out the motion and declaration as well as submitting “a certified copy of [his] trust fund account

statement (or institutional equivalent) . . . for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). III. Petitioner’s Motion to Appoint Counsel is Denied. Petitioner filed a motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 2). In the motion, Petitioner asserts that he has been falsely imprisoned, but he does not make any

3 argument as to why he believes counsel should be appointed in this case. See id. Generally, there is no right to legal representation in a federal habeas corpus proceeding. Wright v. West, 505 U.S. 277, 293 (1992). Appointment of counsel is

only required in a habeas action if counsel is necessary for effective utilization of discovery procedures or if an evidentiary hearing is required. See Rs. 6(a), 8(c) of Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. Appointed counsel is also required if the petitioner is a death row inmate pursuing federal habeas corpus relief. See, e.g., McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 854 (1994). At this stage of the proceeding, the Court is not yet able to determine whether counsel needs to be appointed in this case. Therefore, Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 6) is DENIED. If

it becomes apparent at some point later in these proceedings that counsel should be appointed for Petitioner, the Court, on its own motion, will consider assisting him in securing legal counsel. There is no need for Petitioner to file additional requests for counsel. CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner is ORDERED to file a habeas

corpus petition under either 28 U.S.C. § 2241 or § 2254, depending on the basis for his custody. Additionally, Petitioner is ORDERED to either pay the $5.00 filing fee for a habeas petition or move for leave to proceed in this action IFP. Petitioner shall have FOURTEEN (14) DAYS from the date of this Order to file his recast pleading and either pay the filing fee or file a motion to proceed IFP. Additionally, while this

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Preiser v. Rodriguez
411 U.S. 475 (Supreme Court, 1973)
Wright v. West
505 U.S. 277 (Supreme Court, 1992)
McFarland v. Scott
512 U.S. 849 (Supreme Court, 1994)
Castro v. United States
540 U.S. 375 (Supreme Court, 2003)
Akers v. McGinnis
352 F.3d 1030 (Sixth Circuit, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
RICHARDS v. STATE OF GEORGIA, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richards-v-state-of-georgia-gamd-2025.