UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RICHARD TAYLOR,

A/K/A RICHMOND TAYLOR,

Petitioner,

v.

GREG MCQUIGGIN,

Respondent. 

 /

Case Number: 2:09-cv-12288

OPINION AND ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Petitioner Richard Taylor is a state inmate at the Chippewa Correctional Facility

in Kincheloe, Michigan. On June 15, 2009, he filed a “Request for Permission for Leave

to File Writ of Habeas Corpus With Petitioner’s Trial Judge[,] Hon. Denise Page Hood.” 

Because the court cannot discern the conviction Petitioner challenges or the grounds on

which he seeks habeas corpus relief, the court will summarily dismiss the petition

without prejudice. 

The pending petition was assigned to the Honorable Denise Page Hood in

accordance with the random method for assignment of civil cases to judges set forth in

Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 83.11. The fact that the matter was originally

assigned to the district judge requested by Petitioner is the result of coincidence, not the

result of his request that it be so assigned. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455, Judge Hood

disqualified herself from this case, and the matter was reassigned to the undersigned

district judge by blind draw. (See 7/29/09 Order of Disqualification and Reassigning

Case.)

2:09-cv-12288-RHC-MKM Doc # 3 Filed 08/27/09 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 9
2

Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, provides that a district court may

enter an order for the summary dismissal of a habeas corpus petition “[i]f 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. . . .” A petition may be summarily dismissed

where the 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 (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.”).

In the pending petition, Petitioner fails to specifically identify the conviction

challenged. He references court proceedings in 1992 and 1995, but he does not

specifically identify a challenged conviction. The petition is confused and rambling, and

Petitioner also fails to identify with any clarity the issues he wishes to raise. Thus, the

court cannot determine the nature of Petitioner’s habeas claims. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus [Dkt. # 1] is

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

S/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: August 27, 2009

2:09-cv-12288-RHC-MKM Doc # 3 Filed 08/27/09 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 10
S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\09-12288.TAYLOR.Dismiss.No.Prejudice.mbc.ljd.wpd 3

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, August 27, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa G. Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

2:09-cv-12288-RHC-MKM Doc # 3 Filed 08/27/09 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 11