1

Petitioner was sentenced on June 12, 2003 on the second-degree criminal

sexual conduct charge. While serving that sentence, he was also convicted of

assaulting a prison employee on July 10, 2007 and is serving a four to fifteen year

sentence for that offense. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

J. HENDERSON, #237781,

Petitioner,

Civil No: 08-14776

Honorable Victoria E. Roberts

Magistrate Judge Paul J. Komives

v.

L. CRUMP,

Respondent.

_________________________________/

OPINION & ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL

Petitioner, J. Henderson, filed a pro se habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. §2241 and 28 U.S.C. §2254. Although Petitioner is incarcerated for his conviction

on a second-degree criminal sexual conduct charge1 he is not challenging his state court

conviction. Petitioner challenges issues that arose in the family division of the Genesee

County Circuit Court. He asserts that: (1) the referee should be disqualified; (2) he has

been discriminated against by the family court officers; and (3) his parental rights have

been wrongfully infringed upon. For the reasons set forth below, the Court dismisses the

petition. 

“[A] district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf

of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the grounds that

he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28

2:08-cv-14776-VAR-PJK Doc # 5 Filed 01/08/09 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 31
2

U.S.C. §2254(a); see also 28 U.S.C. §2241(c)(3). Petitioner does not assert that he is held

illegally in state custody. Rather, he seeks relief in the family division of the Genesee

Circuit Court from this Court, by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus. 

A habeas petition is not the proper vehicle for such relief. Petitioner does not assert

any constitutional violations relative to his incarceration, and of equal importance, federal

district courts do not intrude “into state proceedings already underway” unless the

circumstances are extraordinary. Atkins v. Michigan, 644 F.2d. 543, 546 (6th Cir. 1981).

Petitioner fails to demonstrate the existence of such extraordinary circumstances. 

It plainly appears from the face of the petition and exhibits annexed to it, that the

Petitioner is not entitled to relief from this Court. Rule 4, Rules Governing §2254 Cases;

see 28 U.S.C. §2243. A dismissal under Rule 4 includes those petitions which raise legally

frivolous claims, as well as those containing factual allegations that are palpably incredible

or false. Carson v. Burke, 178 F.3d 434, 436-37 (6th Cir. 1999); see also Allen v. Perini,

424 F.2d 134, 141 (6th Cir. 1970) (district court has the duty to “screen out” petitions that

lack merit on their face.). Since the factual circumstances do not allow for habeas review,

the Court dismisses the petition without prejudice; Petitioner can exhaust his Friend of the

Court issues in the proper state venue. 

IT IS ORDERED: (1) The petition for a writ of habeas corpus [dkt. #1] is

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; (2) Petitioner’s “Motion to Correct Deficiency and 

2:08-cv-14776-VAR-PJK Doc # 5 Filed 01/08/09 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 32
2

Petitioner’s amendment has no relationship to the constitutionality of his

incarceration, but rather continues to discuss child custody, child support, parenting

time, and other Friend of the Court issues.

3

Amend Petition Based on New Information”2 [dkt. #3] is DENIED as MOOT; and Petitioner’s

“Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis” [dkt. #4] is DENIED as MOOT.

S/Victoria A. Roberts 

Victoria A. Roberts

United States District Judge

Dated: January 8, 2009

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this

document was served on the attorneys of

record and J. Henderson by electronic means

or U.S. Mail on January 8, 2009.

s/Carol A. Pinegar 

Deputy Clerk

2:08-cv-14776-VAR-PJK Doc # 5 Filed 01/08/09 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 33