UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA

G LEN N M . P RE NT IC E, P etitioner , v. Ci vi l A cti on No. 09 -23 0 (H HK) S T AT E O F MI CH I GA N C O UR T O F AP P EALS et al., Re spo nde nt s.

M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION Pla int if f G le nn M. Pr e nti c e pa id t

he fe e to f

ile thi s p ro se pe tit ion

fo r a wr it o f h a

be a s c or pu s, namingas re spondents the Six teenth Judi cial Circuit Court of Appe als for the State of Michig an, J udg e Cava

nag h of that cour

t, the United States President, Solicitor Gener al, and c urre nt and immediate past Attorney s Gene ral, a nd an attorne y

for the B ank of N ew Yor k Trust Company
. B e c a us e the c la ims pe tit ion e r a sse rt s c ann ot b e a dd re sse d b y a wr it o f h a

be a s c or pu s, the pe tit ion

wi ll be dismissed. The discur sive 24-pag e petition, acc ompanied by a 47-pa g e “B rief in Support” a nd 124 pag es of exhibit s, reve als that the petitioner is ag g rieve d beca use Judge Cava

nag h ref used to allow petitioner to file a supple mental brief afte r petitioner’ s attorney was ba rre d from appe aringbefor e the court. Pet. at 3. That appellate pr ocee ding a ppear s to have followe d from a f orec losure of pe tit ion e r’ s p ro pe rt

y by sh e ri ff ’s sa le , whic h p la int if

f a sse rt s w a s h e ld “ wi tho ut a jud ic ia l he ari ngin violation of the Fifth a

nd Four teenth Amendme nts to the Const itution of the United States.” B rief- 2 -

at 3. As re lie f, the pe tit ion se e ks a wr it o f h a

be a s c or pu s “ HA B ET O T I B IREE S TU AS. ” Pe t. at 2 (d e fi nin gthe te rm

a s me anin gto “ have or

take thy pr op e rt y to t hy se lf ” ); see id. at1 8 , 2 2
. In addition, the petitioner reque sts this honorable J udg e of this United States District Court for the District of Columbi a g rant this Writ Of Habea s Corpus and re verse the dec ision of The Honorabl

e MARK J. C

AV ANAGH, Judge of the St ate of Michigan, Bein g a Judge of the States of Michigan Court of Appeals is in E rror for Dism issin g the Motion by Gl e nn M. Pre ntic efo r L e av eof the c ourt to fi

le his Supp lementa l Brie

f w itho ut an explanati on and w ithou t cause. B ri e f at 45 (e mph a sis in t he or ig ina l) . T he pe tit ion e r a lso se e ks oth e r r e lie f, no t c le arl y e xpla ine d in the petition, by

reque sting that the c ourt O RD ER Timothy

B. Myers f

ill-out the attache d form that would allow [petit ioner] to review the rec ords with the United States De partment of Justice, authorizing [petitioner] to fil e as the inquirer to Timothy B. Myers status with the United States Depa

rtment of Just ice, that justice be st be serve d and settle the que stion of whe ther Timothy

B. Myers is re quired to file a s a F oreig n Ag ents as an A ttorney licensed unde r the State B ar of Michig an. Id. at 29 (e mphasis in the orig inal; spelling a ltered)
. A habe as petition is a vehicle c apable of cha lleng ing the basis of a g overnme ntal restric tion on a per son’s liberty
. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) (providingthat a wr it of habea s corpus will issue only wher e the pe titioner “is in custody in violation of the Consti tution or laws or treaties of the Un ite d St ate s” ); Jones v . Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236, 242 (1963) (holdingthat the term “ custody” as
u s e d i nth e h a b e a s s t at u t e i n c l u d e s n o n - p h ys i c a l g o v e r n m e n t a l r e s tr a i n t s o nani n d i v i d u a l ’ s l i b e rty,
su c h a s c on dit ion s o f p aro le ). He re , th e re are no fa c tua l or e ve n b are a lle g atio ns that w ou ld s up po rt a
re a so na ble c on c lus ion

that th e pe tit ion e r i s r e str a ine d in his lib e rt y . Aha be a s p e tit ion

is n ot c a pa ble of a dd re ssi ngpr ivate pr op e rt

y ri g hts , whic h a

pp e a r t o b e at th e c or e of

the un de rl yingiss ue in t

his
c a se . Aha

be a s p e tit ion

is a lso no t c a

pa ble of pr ov idi ngre lie f i n th e fo rm of a re ve rs a l of

a stateTo the extent petitioner has a c onstitut ional claim, his rec ourse is in a c ivil action in a 1 court in the judicial district whe re the defe ndants reside or whe re the wrong ful ac ts occurr ed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). - 3 - court judg e’s de cision to disallow a supplement filing in a civil action. To be sur e, petitioner’ s
rec ourse doe s not lie in habeas or in this court. Acc ording ly , the petition will be dismi ssed for

1 failure to state a c laim upon which re lief may be g rante d. A sepa rate order acc ompanies this memorandum opinion.
HENR Y H . KEN

NE DY , JR. Da t e: J u l y

2 , 2 0 0 9 Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge