Stuckey v. Biter

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: June 9, 2015
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2015-0860
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Andre Kenneth Stuckey Jr.,

Petltloner’ Case: 1:15-cv-00860 (G Deck)

Assigned To : Unassigned Assign. Date : 6/9/2015 Description: Habeas Corpus/2254

Warden Martin D. Biter et al.,

Respondents.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Petitioner, proceeding pro se, is a California state prisoner incarcerated in Delano, California. He has submitted a form captioned “Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody” and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Despite the form’s caption, the stated ground for relief is that “the respondent is refusing to give the petitioner copies of his book for civil litigation purposes.” Pet. at 4 (page numbers supplied). In his “Prayer for Relief,” petitioner seeks issuance of “a writ of habeas corpus and thereafter order the Prisons Foundation [a named respondent] to send [him] a free copy of his three books . . . that were all published by Prisons Foundation.” Id. at 10.

“[T]he 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.” Prez'ser v. Rodriguez, 41 1 US. 475, 484 (1973). Accordingly, “a district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in Violation of the Constitution or laws or

treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C § 2254. The allegations comprising the instant petition

‘ 3

<fldmmwfifimwmflmmmmmmw~quW—_ m .

and the requested relief are not within the province of habeas. Hence, this case will be

dismissed. A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Mi

DATE: June ,2015 United States District Judge