UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SUE GIDEON, ET AL., 

Petitioners,

v.

CLARENCE EARL WAINWRIGHT, ET

AL., 

Respondents. 

 /

Case Number: 5:15-11454

HON. JOHN CORBETT O’MEARA

OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

This is a habeas case filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The petition was filed by

fifteen individuals. The petition fails to comply with Rule 2(c), (d) or (e), Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. The petition,

therefore, will be dismissed without prejudice.

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 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

5:15-cv-11454-JCO-PTM Doc # 2 Filed 05/01/15 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 7
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 n.7 (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). See also Perez v. Hemingway, 157 F. Supp. 2d 790, 796 (E.D. Mich. 2001) (“A

petition for a writ of habeas corpus must set forth facts that give rise to a cause of action

under federal law or it may summarily be dismissed.”).

II.

Rules 2(c) and (d) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States

District Courts, provide that an application for writ of habeas corpus shall be in the form

of a petition and shall substantially follow the form provided with the rules. The pending

petition does not identify the convictions challenged for each petitioner or the

jurisdictions of conviction. It is, therefore, insufficient to commence a habeas

proceeding. In addition, a petitioner may not challenge convictions rendered in two

different courts in the same petition. See Rule 2(e), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases

in the United States District Courts (“A petitioner who seeks relief from judgments of

more than one state court must file a separate petition covering the judgment or

judgments of each court.”). The pending petition appears to challenge proceedings in

several different courts. 

Thus, the Court will dismiss the petition without prejudice to the Petitioners’ rights

2

5:15-cv-11454-JCO-PTM Doc # 2 Filed 05/01/15 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 8
to challenge their convictions in the appropriate separate petitions. 

III.

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 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.

IV.

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

WITHOUT PREJUDICE and a certificate of appealability is DENIED. 

SO ORDERED. 

s/John Corbett O’Meara 

United States District Judge

Date: May 1, 2015

3

5:15-cv-11454-JCO-PTM Doc # 2 Filed 05/01/15 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 9
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties

of record on this date, May 1, 2015, using the ECF system and/or ordinary mail.

s/William Barkholz 

Case Manager

4

5:15-cv-11454-JCO-PTM Doc # 2 Filed 05/01/15 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 10