UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RICHARD JEROME REDDMANN,

Petitioner,

v.

MARIA I. BARTON,

Respondent. 

 /

Case Number: 2:15-CV-12358

HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND

DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Petitioner Richard Jerome Reddmann filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. 

Reddmann is not in custody, nor does he identify the conviction he challenges. The

petition, therefore, will be dismissed.

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 allegations are so “vague (or) conclusory” that they do not “point to a real possibility

-1-

2:15-cv-12358-GCS-MKM Doc # 3 Filed 07/14/15 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 15
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). 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. 

The pending habeas petition will be dismissed under Rule 4 on two grounds. 

First, Reddmann fails to satisfy 28 U.S.C. § 2254's “in custody” requirement. “For a

federal court to have jurisdiction to grant a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under §

2254, a petitioner must be ‘in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court.’”

Steverson v. Summers, 258 F.3d 520, 522 (6th Cir. 2001), citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

See also Lackawanna County Dist. Attorney v. Coss, 532 U.S. 394, 401 (2001). The

custody requirement preserves the extraordinary nature of habeas corpus relief which

historically “has been limited to cases of special urgency” involving “severe restraints on

individual liberty.” Hensley v. Municipal Court, 411 U.S. 345, 351 (1973). Courts

determine whether a person is “in custody” at the time the petition is filed. Carafas v.

LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 238 (1968). It is not clear that Reddmann was ever convicted

of any offense, but, to the extent he was, he is not currently in custody. Accordingly, the

Court lacks jurisdiction over his habeas petition.

In the alternative, even assuming Reddmann does satisfy the “in custody”

requirement, his complaint is subject to summary dismissal because he fails to identify

-2-

2:15-cv-12358-GCS-MKM Doc # 3 Filed 07/14/15 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 16
the conviction(s) challenged in the petition or the jurisdiction in which he was charged. 

The Court will not guess what conviction Reddmann might be challenging. The petition

is subject to summary dismissal on this basis. 

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

(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.

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for writ of habeas

corpus [dkt. # 1] is DISMISSED.

It is further ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. 

Dated: July 14, 2015

s/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-

2:15-cv-12358-GCS-MKM Doc # 3 Filed 07/14/15 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 17
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on

July 14, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail and also

Richard Reddmann, P.O. Box 4, Wolverine, MI 49799.

s/Barbara Radke

Deputy Clerk

-4-

2:15-cv-12358-GCS-MKM Doc # 3 Filed 07/14/15 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 18