UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TARQUINIS L. HEARD #816027, 

 Petitioner, 

v. 

THOMAS WINN, 

 Respondent. 

 ______________________________/ 

Civil Case No. 14-14840 

Honorable Linda V. Parker 

OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND 

DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 

 This is a habeas case filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner Tarquinis Heard 

(Petitioner) is a state inmate currently incarcerated at the Saginaw Correctional 

Facility in Freeland, Michigan. Petitioner challenges his convictions for three counts 

of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and one count of second-degree criminal 

sexual conduct, but fails to set forth any claims for relief. The petition, therefore, will 

be dismissed without prejudice and accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for guidance is 

rendered moot. 

I. 

 Upon the filing of a habeas corpus petition, the Court must promptly examine 

the petition to determine “if it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any 

exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.” Rule 4, Rules 

4:14-cv-14840-LVP-DRG Doc # 7 Filed 01/26/16 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 24
2

Governing Section 2254 cases. If the Court determines that the petitioner is not 

entitled to relief, the Court shall summarily dismiss the petition. McFarland v. Scott, 

512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994) (“Federal courts are authorized to dismiss summarily any 

habeas petition that appears legally insufficient on its face”). A petition may be 

summarily dismissed where the allegations are so “vague (or) conclusory” that they 

do not “point to a real possibility of constitutional error.” Blackledge v. Allison, 431 

U.S. 63, 76 (1977) (internal citations omitted). “[A] claim for relief in habeas corpus 

must include reference to a specific federal constitutional guarantee, as well as a 

statement of the facts which entitle the Petitioner to relief.” Gray v. Netherland, 518 

U.S. 152, 162-63 (1996) (internal citations omitted). 

 Petitioner uses a form § 2254 petition. The section provided for setting forth 

the claims raised in the petition is blank. (See ECF No. 1 at Pg. ID 5–11.) Thus, the 

Court cannot determine the nature of Petitioner’s habeas claims and will dismiss the 

petition without prejudice. 

II. 

 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22 provides that an appeal may not 

proceed unless a certificate of appealability (COA) is issued under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. 

A COA may be issued “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the 

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A petitioner must show 

“that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the 

4:14-cv-14840-LVP-DRG Doc # 7 Filed 01/26/16 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 25
3

petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented 

were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 

U.S. 473, 484, 120 S. Ct. 1595, 1603-04 (2000) (citation omitted). 

 In this case, the Court concludes that reasonable jurists would not debate the 

Court’s conclusion that the petition should be summarily dismissed without prejudice. 

Therefore, the Court denies a certificate of appealability. 

III. 

 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is 

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and a certificate of appealability is 

DENIED; consequently, Petitioner’s motion for guidance (ECF No. 6) is 

RENDERED MOOT. 

SO ORDERED. 

 s/ Linda V. Parker 

 LINDA V. PARKER 

 U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: January 26, 2016 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of 

record and/or pro se parties on this date, January 26, 2016, by electronic and/or U.S. 

First Class mail. 

 s/ Richard Loury 

 Case Manager 

 

4:14-cv-14840-LVP-DRG Doc # 7 Filed 01/26/16 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 26