IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CHARLES V. OLIVER, :

:

Petitioner :

:

v. : CIVIL NO. 4:CV-14-2273

:

THERESA DELBALSO, ET AL., : (Judge Brann) 

:

Respondents :

MEMORANDUM

April 7, 2015

Background

This pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.§ 2254 was

filed by Charles V. Oliver, an inmate presently confined in the Retreat State

Correctional Institution Prison, Hunlock Creek, Pennsylvania (SCI-Retreat). Named

as respondent is SCI-retreat Superintendent Theresa DelBalso. The required filing fee

has been paid. For the reasons set forth below, Oliver’s petition will be dismissed as

meritless.

Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder and criminal conspiracy

following a jury trial in the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County,

Pennsylvania. On January 26, 2995, Petitioner was sentenced to a term of life

imprisonment. The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed Petitioner’s conviction and

sentence by decision dated April 3, 1996. See Commonwealth v. Oliver, 449 Pa.

1

Case 4:14-cv-02273-MWB-JVW Document 7 Filed 04/07/15 Page 1 of 5
Super. 456, 674 A. 2d (Pa. Super. 1996). The record also indicates that Petitioner

unsuccessfully sought relief pursuant to Pennsylvania’s Post Conviction Relief Act 

(PCRA).1 Oliver indicates that this action is timely filed and that his pending claims

were previously presented to the Pennsylvania state courts.2

Petitioner generally asserts that he is entitled to federal habeas corpus relief

because of government interference, newly discovered evidence and Brady

violations.3 See Doc. 1, p. 1. Oliver contends that his state criminal prosecution and

the purported withholding of Brady material was part of an elaborate scheme

involving multiple nationally known political figures to cover up prior acts of

misconduct and to interfere/undermine a political corruption probe.

He also contends that the Commonwealth’s chief witness and his codefendant, Frank Mantione, perjured himself when talking about a deal he made with

District Attorney’s office. The Petitioner asserts that Mantione perjured himself with

the help of former President William Clinton. See id. at p. 5. 

By way of background, Oliver explains that he is a child of sexual assault

and describes President Clinton as being his partial biological father, however, “not

1. The PCRA permits motions for post-conviction collateral relief for allegations

of error, including ineffective assistance of counsel, unlawfully induced guilty pleas,

improper obstruction of rights to appeal by Commonwealth officials, and violation of

constitutional provisions." Hankins v. Fulcomer, 941 F.2d 246, 251 (3d Cir. 1991). 

2. It is noted that Petitioner filed a prior § 2254 action with this Court, Oliver v.

McGrady, Civil No. 3:12-CV-1445 (Jones, J.), which was dismissed on October 22,

2012 as being untimely.

3. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Brady recognized that the

government has a duty to provide the defense with potentially exculpatory or

impeachment evidence.

2

Case 4:14-cv-02273-MWB-JVW Document 7 Filed 04/07/15 Page 2 of 5
my father of conception.” Id. Petitioner identifies his biological father as being Mark

Shriver and claims that the aforementioned sexual assault took place at Eunice

Kennedy Shriver’s home in Virginia and that thereafter “Bill Clinton raped Petitioners

[sic] mother.” Id. 

The Petition elaborates that the rape of Oliver’s mother led to two separate

shootings at Oliver’s home in New Jersey. The first shooting is described as

occurring in April, 1993 during a surprise party hosted by Hillary Clinton and

involved the Petitioner being shot by former Clinton advisor, Vince Foster, who later

killed himself.4 See id. During the second incident, Oliver was purportedly shot twice

by former President Clinton and “Oliver took pictures of wounds with Coretta Scott

King and family of them.”5 Id. It is also alleged that Petitioner removed the bullets

with the help of Mrs. Clinton and the late Mrs. King’s family.

Oliver further contends that former President Clinton ordered the arrest of

Oliver with the help of the District Attorney and “some strange help” from the

Democratic Party and Congress. Id. As relief, Oliver seeks a new trial and his release

from custody.

Discussion 

Habeas corpus petitions brought under § 2254 are subject to summary

dismissal pursuant to Rule 4 ("Preliminary Consideration by the Judge") of the Rules

4. A subsequent portion of the Petition indicates that Hillary Clinton had a surprise

birthday party for the Petitioner. See id. at p. 8. Petitioner adds that Foster killed

himself to avoid having to testify about the shooting of Oliver. See id.

5. Oliver is apparently referencing the late wife and family of Doctor Martin Luther

King, Jr.

3

Case 4:14-cv-02273-MWB-JVW Document 7 Filed 04/07/15 Page 3 of 5
Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. §

2254 (1977). Rule 4 provides in pertinent part: "If it plainly appears from the face of

the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in

the district court, the judge shall make an order for its summary dismissal and cause

the petitioner to be notified." A petition may be dismissed without review of an

answer "when the petition is frivolous, or obviously lacking in merit, or where . . . the

necessary facts can be determined from the petition itself . . . ." Allen v. Perini, 424

F.2d 134, 141 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 906 (1970). Accord Love v. Butler,

952 F.2d access to a federal court, it is not surprising that subjects of federal

investigation. 

Fantastic, delusional, and simply unbelievable claims are clearly subject to

dismissal. See Golden v. Coleman, 429 Fed. Appx. 73 (3d Cir. 2011). Clearly,

Petitioner’s assertions that his Pennsylvania state court homicide conviction was the

end result of an elaborate coverup scheme involving multiple nationally known

political figures including former President Clinton is a delusional scenario created by

the Petitioner. 

In light of the irrational contentions raised by Petition, his pending action is

clearly frivolous and as such is subject to summary dismissal under Rule 4. See

Kersh v. Smeler, No. 10-cv-90, 2010 WL 1372414 * 1 (D. Colo. April 5,

2010)(fantastic and delusional habeas corpus claims and supporting allegations are

subject to dismissal under Rule 4); Andrews v. Dretke, No. 3-03-CV-1605, 2003 WL

22251084 *1 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 18, 2003)(a court has a duty to screen out frivolous §

4

Case 4:14-cv-02273-MWB-JVW Document 7 Filed 04/07/15 Page 4 of 5
2254 petitions and eliminate the burden that would be placed on respondent by

ordering an unnecessary answer). Moreover, given the farfetched nature of the

incredible allegations raised by Oliver, it is clear that the Petition is incapable of being

cured by amendment. An appropriate Order will enter.6

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Matthew W. Brann 

Matthew W. Brann

United States District Judge

6. It is noted that the issue of whether the Petitioner was mentally competent at the

time of his state court criminal proceedings is not before this Court.

5

Case 4:14-cv-02273-MWB-JVW Document 7 Filed 04/07/15 Page 5 of 5