UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BOBBY E. BURTON, Jr., 

Petitioner, Civil No. 2:15-CV-10162

HONORABLE SEAN F. COX

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

v.

BRUCE ARMSTRONG,

Respondent,

______________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE

THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DECLINING TO

ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY OR LEAVE TO APPEAL IN

FORMA PAUPERIS

Bobby Burton, Jr., (“petitioner”), presently confined with the Texas Department of

Criminal Justice, Correctional Institution Division at the Alfred Hughes Unit in Gatesville,

Texas has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In his pro

se application, petitioner challenges an unspecified conviction out of the “T.D.C.

Courthouse.” For the reasons that follow, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is

SUMMARILY DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

I. DISCUSSION

Petitioner does not specify in his habeas petition what conviction he is challenging in

his petition, other than to state that it is from the “T.D.C. Courthouse.” The Texas

Department of Criminal Justice’s Offender Search, located at

http://offender.tdcj.state.tx.us/OffenderSearch/, indicates that petitioner is serving a sentence

1

2:15-cv-10162-SFC-MKM Doc # 5 Filed 03/03/15 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 21
out of Harris County, Texas for aggravated robbery, aggravated perjury and criminal

mischief. Petitioner is serving a separate sentence out of Fort Bend County, Texas for

murder. This Court has also checked the Michigan Department of Corrections’ Offender

Tracking Information System (OTIS), located at http://mdocweb.state.mi.us/otis2, and there

is no indication that petitioner was ever convicted of any crime in Michigan or is serving a

sentence in this state. 1

 The Court assumes that petitioner is attempting to challenge one of

his convictions out of Texas. 

A federal district court lacks jurisdiction to hear a state prisoner’s habeas petition,

where the petitioner was not convicted, sentenced, or incarcerated within that district. See

Wadsworth v. Johnson, 235 F. 3d 959, 962-63 (5th Cir. 2000). Because petitioner is currently

incarcerated in the State of Texas and is challenging one of his convictions out of Texas, this

Court lacks jurisdiction over his petition. See Rheuark v. Wade, 608 F.2d 304, 305 (8th Cir.

1979). Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the petition for writ of habeas corpus without

prejudice to petitioner filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the appropriate federal

district court in Texas. 

The Court will also deny a certificate of appealability. In order to obtain a certificate

of appealability, a prisoner must make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To demonstrate this denial, the applicant is required to show

that reasonable jurists could debate whether, or agree that, the petition should have been

1

 This Court is permitted to take judicial notice of these inmate locator websites. See Ward v.

Wolfenbarger,323 F. Supp. 2d 818, 821, n. 3 (E.D. Mich. 2004). 

2

2:15-cv-10162-SFC-MKM Doc # 5 Filed 03/03/15 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 22
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, 483-84 (2000). When

a district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the

prisoner’s underlying constitutional claims, a certificate of appealability should issue, and

an appeal of the district court’s order may be taken, if the petitioner shows that jurists of

reason would find it debatable whether the petitioner states a valid claim of the denial of a

constitutional right, and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district

court was correct in its procedural ruling. Id. 2

The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability, because “jurists of reason”

would not find it debatable that this Court lacks jurisdiction over petitioner’s habeas

application. The Court will also deny petitioner leave to appeal in forma pauperis, because

the appeal would be frivolous. Myers v. Straub, 159 F. Supp. 2d 621, 629 (E.D. Mich. 2001).

II. ORDER

Accordingly, the Court SUMMARILY DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the

petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court DECLINES TO ISSUE a certificate 

2

 “The district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to

the applicant.” Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, Rule 11(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.

3

2:15-cv-10162-SFC-MKM Doc # 5 Filed 03/03/15 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 23
of appealability or leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2015 S/ Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

U. S. District Judge

I hereby certify that on March 3, 2015, the foregoing document was served on counsel of

record via electronic means and upon Bobby Burton, Jr. via First Class mail at the

address below:

Bobby E. Burton, Jr. 836846 

Texas Correctional Facility 

Aldred D. Hughes Unit 

Route 2, Box 4400 

Gatesville, TX 46597 

S/ J. McCoy 

Case Manager 

4

2:15-cv-10162-SFC-MKM Doc # 5 Filed 03/03/15 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 24